Posted on 09/17/2007 2:35:27 PM PDT by Delacon
Also see my earlier post from the Federalist Papers via Hamilton. (I can find a simialar excerpt from Madsion if pressed.) Your Saundefur understands the Declaration and the Constitution like a modern day liberal, which is to say according to his own interpretation and worldview. People like me prefer Jefferson, Hamilton and Madison's interpretation.
ML/NJ
Based on the principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, I can see why you think slaves have a moral right to rebel.
I am, however, fascinated by how you would extract from the same document a right of their owners to suppress such a rebellion. Please elucidate.
“I am, however, fascinated by how you would extract from the same document a right of their owners to suppress such a rebellion. Please elucidate.”
Heck John Brown had a better right to start a rebellion against the USA than the south ever did.
jackson was anti-secession over taxation and Calhoun
nobody ever tried to take his property with recompense
and the Brits had just emancipated with recompense so I bet that figured in his mind
I’m ambivalent on Jackson..I admire his mettle and he is a homeboy but he sure expanded Federal power
not good. there
“Please! Jefferson is widely considered the author of the Declaration. He is also the author of the Kentucky Resolution. Did Jefferson misunderstand the Declaration?”
Please, southern secession defenders always fall back on Jefferson and the Kentucky ResolutionS and try to make some direct connection between them and the Declaration. The Kentucky Resolutions were pure Jefferson while the Declaration of Independence had four other immediate collaborators Adams, Franklin, Sherman and Livingston. Jefferson was sellected to write it. You can thank him for his ability to articulate so beatifully the ideas hashed out by all five of them and put them to paper. Franklin and Adams made about 48 corrections(including the insertion of three complete paragraphs) to the original draft and it went on to be reworked by the entire continental congress(making thirty-nine additional revisions). The thoughts reflected in the Declaration were not Jeffersons own. He wrote it. He didn’t author it. Ironic don’t you think that if Jefferson HAD his way, a condemnation of slavery would have been written into the Declaration. Notice btw that the Kentucky Resolutions were submitted to all the other states and rejected. As for Hamilton he, in response to the simular Virginia Resolution, wanted to send troops into that state “to act upon the laws and put Virginia to the Test of resistance.”
Seriously? I think that this proclamation is pretty unequivocal about secession. Come on. Jackson was an executive’s executive. I think he would not have condoned secession or revolt under his watch under any circumstances. He didn’t put up with much from the other branches of the federal government let alone outside of it(think defiance of SCOTUS Judge Marshall).
“I’m ambivalent on Jackson..I admire his mettle and he is a homeboy but he sure expanded Federal power”
I grew up in Tennessee. He is our homeboy. :)
But two things first.
There has not yet been a U.S. Civil War.
The Federal Government recognized that the states of the Confederacy had, in fact, seceded. After the war, the Confederacy was divided into military districts. Years later, the states were (re)admitted.
The Federal Government “recognized” secession in the same way the southern states “recognized” they were part of the union after the war — i.e., simply as a military fact, not as a justifiable fact.
I can’t see how you can honestly believe that a fellow who:
1) got slashed across the face by a saber when a Brit officer demanded he shine his boots in in Waxhaw
2) fought Indians for 2 decades to quell them and allow that area to be settled by whites and for guys like him specifically to go and exploit that land.
3) owned over 150 slaves at the Hermitage
4) killed a fair number of folks over personal disputes without qualms
How a man like that would allow the Radical Republicans like Sumner and Stevens to simply take his property and destroy his assets and profitability and then do nothing because once he had battle Calhoun over tariffs....another sort of matter entirely.
I believe that had he been alive that yes, he would have fought against the Democrats splitting into thirds and against secession and preferred a solution but I doubt he would have given up his way of life without a fight.
pretty unusual sentiment for a southerner, do you have a personal perspective?
Well I think Jackson was a “whats mine is mine” kinda guy also and that from his position as chief executive he would have carried that pov to conclude states trying to leave the union were stealing his people from his union.
lol...pretty funny
I have never heard anyone give a logical explanation why it would ever be morally wrong to start a rebellion against slavery.
You can disagree with his tactics and timing, and you can worry about the collateral damage of such a rebellion, but you cannot simultaneously support the US Declaration of Independence and believe that John Brown was morally wrong.
US slaves had infinitely greater cause to rebel against their masters than Americans ever had to rebel against the British Crown.
The only way you can support both positions is to assert that slaves (or blacks) aren’t really men within the meaning of the Declaration. Which was exactly the position eventually taken by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision.
Care to explain what "usurpations" were committed by the 'national rulers' in 1860 that justified secession/revolution?
It would have been more accurate to say I spent my childhood in TN. And yes I sat through history lessons where the teachers called it the war between the states or even maybe(long time ago) the war of northern aggression. I don’t believe though that being from any particular region dictates how you land on this issue. Put simply, John Brown attempted to start a rebellion among the slaves. They had more of a right to rebel than anybody in the world did or does(except for peoples being subjected to genocide) and certainly the south is way down on the list.
Just read some history. The South was being disproportionately taxed for the benefit of the industrial North. You don't really think the Southerners decided to leave on a whim, do you?
ML/NJ
Isn't it obvious that the Southerners viewed the slaves as property. You do think people have a right to defend themselves against horse thieves, don't you?
ML/NJ
Sheesh, you obviously don't know jack - Jefferson DID condemn slavery in HIS draft of the DoI:
he [the king] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce
If we're lucky.
Total neo confederate myth. And if taxes were the cause, why didn't they say so in their declaration of causes.
You don't really think the Southerners decided to leave on a whim, do you?
No, they left because Lincoln promised to block expansion of slavery in the territories, and the slave owning aristocrats knew they needed continual expansion to keep their slavery Ponzi scheme afloat.
You, my firend are the the one who should read some history.
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.