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.
These neo-Yankees are have proven their fascist leanings over the years. Go back thru the archives, they have been at this Southern bashing for a long time. When somebody stands up to their BS they play the race card, right on que. Somebody needs to explain what Free Republic is to them, for the 1,000,000th / time. I wish they would go to the DU where they would fit right in.
Ah, yes. The old "Have your cake and secede from it, too" argument. If Virginia rescinded it's ratification of the Constitution and was no longer subject to US law, it can hardly complain about something being unconstitutional and illegal.
I always find it interesting that the Lost Causer position about self-determination only seems to apply to the states as a whole, as if they are the fundamental particle of sovereignty, neither forming larger entities of sovereignty nor allowing smaller ones.
The power to admit a state and to approve changes in its status once it has been allowed to join is a power reserved to the United States by Article I and Article IV. Implied in that is the power to approve a state's leaving altogether. And I should hasten to add that this is not my viewpoint alone or a new view. James Madison said as much in letters written in the 1820's.
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.
In the first place, saying that Virginia was no longer a part of the Union implies their acts of secession were legal. They were not. As for the legality or illegality of the recognized Virginia legislature, you can argue about that. But the fact is that the people of the commonwealth were entitled to representation in Congress and in their own state legislature. Those people not interested in participating in the Southern insurrection chose their own representatives and set up a legislature loyal to the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized them as the legitimate government, and it was this body that voted to partition. All done according to the Constitution of the United States, and the legality of which was later admitted by Virginia once the rebellion had ended.
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.
Claiming an act is illegal and unconstitutional because it was contrary to another illegal and unconstitutional act is an interesting argument.
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.
A state's right to do what? What state's right was being suppressed? The Southern states launched their illegal secession because they saw the election of Lincoln as a threat to the expansion of slavery. The Southern leaders of the period all agree on that. Read Robert Toombs farewell to the Senate or Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's first address to the rebel congress or the speeches and writings of the various secession commissioners and you will see the importance slavery played in their decision.
I don't know what surface you are looking under, but there is none of that here. The point we have been trying to make is that slavery was indeed to cause of sectional tension in this country from its very beginning. Many of the Founders saw that and commented on it. Jefferson and others even predicted that slavery would be the rock upon which the Union would split. He was right.
Racism was not the issue. 99% of the people in the country back then, North and South, would be considered racists by even the mildest standards today. But many, perhaps even a majority, thought slavery to be wrong and in direct conflict with the nations founding ideals and principles. People like Washington, Jefferson, Franklyn, Adams and most of the Founding fathers saw it as wrong.
It is true that all societies throughout history engaged in slavery in one form or another, and that virtually all races and nationalities at one time or another were victims of slavery. But that is not the point and it does nothing to excuse American slavery.
We were founded to know better, and quite frankly we did know better. But we chose as a nation to ignore our principles and allow the practice to continue long past the time when it should have ceased. We allowed it to continue because it was financially profitable for a few very powerful people while at the same time denigrating the rest of population.
That is why comparing American slavery with barbarians like the Muslims is no excuse whatsoever. Slavery is a stain on our history and the cause of the most gruesome war in our history. To pretend otherwise or to somehow attempt to minimize it or excuse it does no service to either our history or the memory of our forefathers who struggled mightily with these questions.
History is important. Do your best to get it right and don't blink at the ugly parts.