Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Heyworth; detsaoT
In other words, if the contract can be broken by one side, why not the other?

You are channeling Daniel Webster, I see. From 1851:

If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally and systematically, and persist in so doing, year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the North were deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purpose to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated to say, and I repeat, that if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy, the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side.

326 posted on 02/08/2006 11:47:22 AM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies ]


To: rustbucket
You are channeling Daniel Webster

Mr. Webster is surely one of the most brilliant minds of his era. Thanks for the quote!

~dt~

328 posted on 02/08/2006 11:57:47 AM PST by detsaoT (Proudly not "dumb as a journalist.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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