Posted on 09/09/2019 9:42:11 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Nearly all modern historians agree with Professor James McPherson’s conclusion that the Civil War was caused by Southern objections to the 1860 Republican Party’s resolve to prohibit slavery’s extension into any of the federal territories that had not yet been organized as states. The resolution originated with the Wilmot Proviso fourteen years earlier before the infant GOP had even been formed. In 1846 Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot introduced a rider to a $2 million appropriation intended for use in a negotiated settlement to end the Mexican War. The rider stipulated that the money could not be used to purchase land that might be acquired in the treaty if slavery was allowed in such territories. After considerable wrangling, the bill passed without the rider.
Contrary to first impressions, the Proviso had little to do with sympathy for black slaves. Its purpose was to keep blacks out of the new territories so that the lands might be reserved for free whites. As Wilmot put it, “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent . . . I would preserve for free white labor a fair country . . . where the sons of toil, of my own race and color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”
The same attitude prevailed during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln readily admitted that his September 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was a necessity of war. Major General George McClellan, who then commanded the North’s biggest army and would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 presidential elections, believed it was a deliberate attempt to incite Southern slave rebellions. Lincoln was himself aware that such uprisings might result.
(Excerpt) Read more at civilwarchat.wordpress.com ...
Then why don't they have to agree when they leave?
Assumes correctly.
It was not rebellion. States are sovereign and have the right to unilateral secession.
Then do they have the right to unilaterally expel another state from the Union?
As I've said before, when Chase supposedly says something FLT-bird agrees with then he's a genius. When Chase says something FLT-bird doesn't agree with then he's an idiot. FLT-bird wants it both ways.
It says new states may be added by Congress. It doesn't say that's the only way, i.e. "new states will be added by Congress" or something indicating that only one method is possible. If it isn't explicitly prohibited then it must be allowed; isn't that what you all keep telling us?
For the record, Lincoln did add West Virginia on a whim in violation of the United States Constitution. So there is that.
No there isn't. There was nothing unconstitutional about the way West Virginia was admitted.
amen
you’re making up procedures the constitution does not require. I am not discussing fort sumpter, I am discuss the general right of states to succeed, In general that IS not an insurrection.
Or are you making up powers that don't exist? If Congressional approval is needed for a state to be admitted in the first place, and congressional approval is required for every change of status - be it combining or splitting or changing its border by a fraction of an inch - then why is it hard to understand that leaving the Union entirely wouldn't require the same? Leaving unilaterally without discussion and walking away from responsibility for debt or national obligations and with every bit of federal property they could get their hands on without paying for it is guaranteed to result in a separation filled with acrimony and hard feelings, and make any peaceful coexistence virtually impossible, at least in the short run. To believe that the Founding Fathers thought that preferable is insane. None of them are on record as endorsing anything close to that.
I am discuss the general right of states to succeed, In general that IS not an insurrection.
Not when done legally, no.
It’s “hard to understand” because it’s not there. Why is the tenth amendment so hard for you to understand?
What is hard to understand is how someone could possibly believe that the Founding Fathers were in favor of a method of leaving guaranteed to lead to conflict. But then again a lot of what you Lost Causers cling to is hard to understand.
Why is the tenth amendment so hard for you to understand?
When it is misused then it's hard to understand the logic behind your argument. Why do you think that the Constitution protected only those leaving and was a tool for shafting those remaining?
what’s so hard to understand is your reluctance to admit they forgot to write it down.
How do you misuse the tenth amendment? It leaves everything to the states not granted by the fed. A 9 year old could understand that.
LAST WORD TO YOU. I’m out.
LOL! That's your explanation?
But apparently not you. The concept of implied powers seems to short circuit you brain.
Bye, bye.
You are desperate. But I don't think I can help you.
I'm not the one making the argument that might makes right. You are.
Cited and sourced. Google it for yourself.
Because freedom of association. If you join a private club, the other members often get a vote as to whether to admit you or not. You require nobody else's permission to leave. In a marriage both have to consent to get married. One however may dissolve the marriage even if the other would prefer they don't go. Why? Freedom of association.
Then do they have the right to unilaterally expel another state from the Union?
No
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.