Posted on 10/15/2010 11:37:41 AM PDT by DWar
Slavery was an important issue in 1860 but it has been illegal in America for decades.
Today the important principle is the Constitutional Right of states to organize their own societies locally and to not be forced into the mold of some socialist elitist or bureaucrat living thousands of miles away.
Arizonans are being overwhelmed by an invasion of thousands of illegal aliens with many serious consequences; increasing crime, the cost of federally required social services and a lower quality of life. When Arizona enacts laws to protect themselves the socialist elitists in Washington join with FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS to sue Arizona State in federal court.
I think the number of states suing the federal government over violations of the tenth amendment is at 14 now. England in the 1770s tried to put a lid on the growing antipathy of the people towards governance from afar. How’d that work out for them?
Slavery was an important issue in 1860 but it has been illegal in America for decades.
Today the important principle is the Constitutional Right of states to organize their own societies locally and to not be forced into the mold of some socialist elitist or bureaucrat living thousands of miles away.
Arizonans are being overwhelmed by an invasion of thousands of illegal aliens with many serious consequences; increasing crime, the cost of federally required social services and a lower quality of life. When Arizona enacts laws to protect themselves the socialist elitists in Washington join with FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS to sue Arizona State in federal court.
I think the number of states suing the federal government over violations of the tenth amendment is at 14 now. England in the 1770s tried to put a lid on the growing antipathy of the people towards governance from afar. How’d that work out for them?
‘Simply, to not be subject to the dictates of the central authority made up of elitist busybodies.’
This is how many TODAY want to revise it. So romantic, so...utopian.
But the fact is the CSA codified slavery. Everyone involved in its authorship admitted as much, repeatedly and proudly.
This is nothing but a rehash of Jubal Early’s ‘Lost Cause’ mytholoy.
‘You asked, “States Rights to do ‘what’ exactly? The right for the people of each state to decide for themselves how their own local society should be ordered. Not for some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to dictate and regulate it.’
First, I agree with everything you said in the 1st paragraph of your post.
That said, I wasn’t actualy ‘asking’ States Rights to do what exactly. It was rhetorical. The CSA constitution ANSWERED that question in 1860.
It was about economics. Everything beyond that was a rationalization, including the ‘Lost Cause’ myth promoted by Jubal Early, and many others that were bitter about losing the Civil War, and sought scapegoats. Longstreet was a particular target of Early, he needed one to hang the blame on and make the ‘Lost Cause’ myth ‘fit’.
Can we please separate the 2 ideas? 1- Slavery 2- Federalism
I agree the CSA codified slavery. All agree that was a grievious wrong.
I do NOT want to rewrite history to say the Civil War was only about the principle of States Rights. It was about the South's desire to maintain slavery as an important part of their economic capacity.
But the Civil War threw the baby out with the bathwater and began the nation down a slippery slope away from a constitutional federal republic and towards a centralized bureaucratic dictatorship.
Evil ideas always work to subvert good principles. Slavery successfully subverted federalism.
This is not a 'Lost Cause' argument. This is neither romantic nor utopian.
This is about how an evil idea, slavery, was able to subvert an excellent principle of governance, federalism.
AND how the opponents of federalism and their unwitting accomplices use the conflation of these separate ideas and the univeral abhorance of the one to the detriment of the other.
(See post 25)
Sorry for the late reply:
Old Testament slaves were also released every seven years.
Thats like seperating genocide from Nazi’s.
‘This is nothing but a rehash of Jubal Early’s ‘Lost Cause’ mytholoy.
This is not a ‘Lost Cause’ argument. This is neither romantic nor utopian. ‘
Sure it is.
Exactly! The Nazis and genocide are separable. Conflation of these ideas is illogical.
Genocide was not invented by the Nazis. It has been committed by many non-Nazis through all of history. In addition, not everything done by the Nazi regime was evil. The Nazis promoted scientific and technological advancement separate and apart from genocide and from which the world benefits today.
Christianity is not defined by the evils of history's political leaders, from Augustine to Hitler, who used it to expand and secure their political control.
Certainly the ideas of slavery and federalism can be discussed independently.
In the same way federalism is good and slavery evil regardless of the South's efforts in 1860 to use it to expand and secure their economic interests.
Your belief that they cannot be separate issues begs two questions: 1- can slavery exist absent federalism? 2- Can federalism exist absent slavery?
The answer to both questions is yes. It is the refusal to deal with them separately and instead to conflate them that demonizes federalism. This is a favorite tactic of liberals. If conservatives fail to see and understand this they allow socialists a powerful weapon.
I meant Constantine to Hitler. Sorry St Augustine!
In fact it was something different from the Constitution properly understood.
It was the idea that states were free of checks on their power similar to those which were imposed on the federal government.
"States rights" without guarantees of basic individual liberties certainly are compatible with slavery.
Where are they at?
If they had outlawed slavery then what would they have seceded over?
But the South was that central authority made up of elitist busybodies. They had exercised a disproportionate level of influence over the government for the entire history of the country up to that point.
Slavery was not really an important issue. The South was more concerned with their fear that the northern states would amend the constitution to allow the people to elect U.S. Senators. And, sure enough, the South was right and we later got the 17th Amendment.
The fault lies with the founding fathers for not outlawing slavery from the very beginning of the country.
Before you make such a blanket statement, please read Federalist #54 and the explanatory essay that follows it.
These documents disagree with your hypothesis.
I have read them. Go read the one from Mississippi.
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.