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

To: paladin1_dcs
What’s the problem with a State putting down insurgents?

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to put down insurrections. Did the Virginia Constitution give that same power to her governor?

There’s a difference between insurgents who have no legal rights and the States who seceded, who had a legal right to do so. Especially Virginia, who was one of the original States and who derived it’s rights as a soverign State directly from the Victory over the English Crown.

There was no legal right to secede unilaterally.

Yes they did. They formed themselves into the reorganized legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia, were recognized by Congress as the legitimate government of Virginia, and voted to partition themselves. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it.

But don’t try to say this was a War over just Slavery. There was more at stake than what we’ve been taught lately.

For the South, defense of slavery was the reason for their rebellion. You may find that inconvenient but the writings and speeches of the people of the time bear that out.

260 posted on 12/09/2010 9:27:58 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur

Frankly, I’m not certain about the VA Constitution. I would assume that it gives the governor the power to put down insurrections, but I’m not positive on that point.

You keep saying that there’s no legal right to secede unilaterally. Why? It’s not a power given to the Federal Government by the USC, so why isn’t there a right to secede unilaterally?

I would suggest that Congress, by recognizing a group of individuals who were not elected, were usurping Virginia’s rights of self representation and self rule that all soverign States possess. In effect, it was illegal and unconstitutional because the State of Virginia was no longer a part of the Union and therefore not under the representation of Congress.

Frankly, I don’t find the slavery issue inconvenient so much as distracting. I have the feeling that many in this discussion would be siding with the South if the issue of chattel slavery were removed, yet because of this issue the true issue for me, State’s rights, is ignored or down played.

Bluntly put, I take the position that chattel slavery is evil but not the worst evil out there and blacks in America have whined about it for long enough. Every race, nation and people on this earth have held and been held as chattel slaves at one point in time or another and I’m sick of hearing about how bad America in general and Southerners in particular are so evil for ever being involved, especially considering the fact that even under chattel slavery here in America, where they were considered little more than property, their condition could have been much, much worse if they had been sold to a Muslim.

Want to impress me about your dedication to seeing the evils of slavery eradicated? Begin pointing out how Islam not only allows slavery, even today, but encourages it and WE finance it by our continued reliance on foreign oil. Begin pushing for the eradication of Islam from the face of this earth due to it’s truly evil nature and then I’ll be impressed. Until then, save your breath and don’t waste my time.

All that being said, don’t take this post as personal N-S, you’ve been cordial and well thought out in all of my dealings with you, even though I disagree with your assumptions and conclusions. More of less I’m just getting fed up with the whole Southerner=Racist meme that seems to prevade these threads just under the surface.


263 posted on 12/09/2010 10:00:25 AM PST by paladin1_dcs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | 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