Posted on 03/30/2007 5:09:20 PM PDT by neverdem
"Piss on precedent, Parker broke from history and principle."
It didn't, of course. Unless you count the recent history of gun control.
ping
The government of Czechoslovakia did when they separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even Great Britain had (and presumably still has) a provision to terminate its existing government and supplant it with a new parliament and monarch under certain circumstances. It was last used in 1688 when they ousted James II and replaced him with William III.
No the major difference is that unlike the confederate supporters around here, the Founding Fathers in 1776 were under no illusions that their actions were legal and didn't moan and cry when the British tried to prevent their rebellion.
First time I've heard collection of taxes described as 'protection of sovereignty'...
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
abe needed the cash. To continue the failed system of 'internal improvements'. Give him money he thinks is his due and he promises not to destroy your homeland. Some people would call that extortion. Course the Jaffaites will continue the claim abe was sent from Heaven itself to save the glorious union to eventually propogate 'democracy' around the world and he needed to protect Southerners from themselves....
The first successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the late 1930's. Seventy more years of slavery was OK with you?
However it happened I believe the two would have reunited eventually.
Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.
Then he went on to say, The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union
See, it was all about delivering the mail. Through rain or sleet or snow or gloom of night...or armed rebellion.
Essex Junto? War of 1812? Hartford? Bueller? Bueller? We should have just let them go and they (and those that thought like them from Illinois) wouldn't have caused the problems they did...
Off your meds again?
There may be some truth to that, but Southerners also helped fight those same British for the same freedom enjoyed by all. The colonists did not subjugate their newfound freedom when they ratified the Constitution. On the contrary, they insisted on the Bill of Rights to protect those freedoms forevermore.
Considering the wording of the Declaration of Independence and that of the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, I still maintain that any given state does have the fundamental right to withdraw from the union at its own discretion --such a move is the only way to guarantee individual freedom.
I think the Founding Fathers would agree with me for we should always remember the opening line of the declaration, "We the people of the united States of America". "States" is capitalized while "united" is not. This was not originally meant to be one distinct country like England or France, but it was meant to be a common union of distinct countries like the EU.
Eventually? How many centuries later are we talking here? Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet. I'd say that there would be at least two separate nations still remaining today in what we call the USA. And if the secession was peacefull, then there never would have been the military buildup, the advances in military machinery, and the later war with spain that made america a world superpower. The annexation of hawaii, alaska, panama canal zone, and puerto rico would never have occurred. A pacific fleet would never been created because the phillipines would never have meant a thing to us and the panama canal, the link between the atlantic and the pacific, would not have been ours. In fact, the panama canal might not have even been built untill 50 or so years later, after europe asia and africa were united by the germans.
Considering that the world has a recorded history of slavery of at least 7000 years it doesn’t seem that much to have avoided over 400,000 deaths. And a peaceful end to slavery might have left country much less divided today on the issues of race.
Using that criteria is makes no sense that the colonies didn't eventually reunite with Britain.
You seem to argue that I make simplistic arguments yet you retort with simplistic arguments.
The CSA are much closer geographically and had a resent Revolutionary war in common. The USA and CSA had common ancestors and relatives across their borders. The US and CSA at the time were culturally opposed to Monarchy.
As for the US and Britain I do not easily discount the possibility of a closer union with Britain. I do not foresee an circumstances where a reunification would occur but who knows what may come.
The only modern Supreme Court case to look at the issue, United States v. Miller, found that the Second Amendment was designed to preserve the effectiveness of the organized militia.As the Supreme Court rejected the US government argument that the case shouldn't even be heard, as Miller, not being a member of the organized militia, didn't have standing to bring it to the Court.
I certainly agree; we foolishly and needlessly sacrificed many American lives in that struggle. Again, we need only look at England or France, each with their own history of slavery, and race relations in both countries are far better than our own.
I will admit that I had not thought much about the economic justification for the South rejoining the North, but that alone would have been a compelling reason once immediate political discourse was eliminated.
Considering that this is all supposition and conjecture does it matter?
Canada hasn't reunited with its sister colony to the south yet. The thirteen original colonies havn't reunited with the crown yet.
Canada decided to stay loyal to the crown the USA had a passionate dislike for all things British up to the First World War. The CSA was established as a near copy of the USA constitutionally. Culturally the countries would have been nearly identical. The South had little industrial capacity and would therefore have generated little wealth and in the coming century would have increased its trading with the North.
Culture and economics would have driven the two back together or perhaps war over the Western territories.
Is it a certainty that it would happen hardly but it is a definite possibility.
The government is forbidden from infringing upon a free person's right to possess and carry weapons suitable for use in a well-functioning citizen army; to claim an artifact is protected, one must demonstrate some degree of military utility.
up yours you socialist myrmidon!
(directed to the author, not the poster)
This is a Republic. Get over it.
How do the economics of slavery compare with immigrant labor? If you buy a slave, you have a substantial up front cost in addition to the costs of keeping the slave well-enough fed, clothed, and sheltered to be an effective worker for a long time. Hire an immigrant off the boat and you'll avoid the up-front cost; in addition, if the pay is inadequate to keep the worker healthy and he becomes sick, no problem--just hire another worker off the boat.
The tougher issue with slavery, I expect, would be what to do with generations of people who had deliberately not been taught to exercise their own initiative. The Civil War didn't solve that problem; its effects persist 140 years later.
"States" was a noun, while "united" was an adjective. Most nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, a usage perhaps inherited from German.
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.