There is no constitutional right for secession.
Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.
And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!
The right of a State to enslave people.
This thread is on the Declaration of Independence, and because it was universal in nature the Founders had a hard time justfying slavery and hoped that eventaully it would be ended.
As for the Constitution, you can check out the facts here
Abraham Lincoln’s fidelity to the Declaration of Independence is equally a fidelity to the Constitution. The Constitution takes its moral life from the principles of liberty and equality, and was created to serve those principles. We are divided as a nation today, as in Lincoln’s time, because we have severed the connection between these two documents.
Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and the Union” contains the central theme of Lincoln’s life and work. Drawing upon biblical language, Lincoln describes the Declaration of Independence as an “apple of gold,” and the Constitution as the “frame of silver” around it. We cannot consider the Constitution independently of the purpose which it was designed to serve.
The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.
Abraham Lincoln defended the Union and sought to defeat the Confederate insurrection because he held that the principles of the Declaration and Constitution were inviolable. In his speeches and in his statecraft, Lincoln wished to demonstrate that self-government is not doomed to either be so strong that it overwhelms the rights of the people or so weak that it is incapable of surviving.
About the Lecturer:
Kevin Portteus is assistant professor of politics at Hillsdale College, where he has taught since 2008. Dr. Portteus is faculty advisor for the Washington-Hillsdale Internship Program, and teaches courses in American political thought and American political institutions.
A visiting graduate faculty member in the American History and Government program at Ashland University, Dr. Portteus formerly taught at Belmont Abbey College and Mountain View College, in Dallas. Having published online through the Washington Times, Human Events, and BigGovernment.com, his book, Executive Details: Public Administration and American Constitutionalism, is under review for publication. He received his B.A., summa cum laude, from Ashland University, and his M.A. and Ph.D. in politics from the University of Dallas.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2869815/posts
But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.
Please show me the word 'secession' in the Constitution.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
-----
Licoln had every constitutional right and duty to defend the nation from rebellion, which is in the Constitution.
The major problem being 'rebellion' is an attempt to overthrow the legitimate authority. The South never tried to overthrow the Constitution, they merely wished to leave the Compact.
As I've already illustrated AND provided Constitutional sources - assistance for rebellions IN the State must come at the request OF the State.
While on the subject-
Article VI. - The United States
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
***
ALL the States haven this provision. To my knowledge, they always have.
-----
And ofcourse you guys always claim that you aren't 'for' slavery, but that is why the South were rebelling over what a noble cause you guys rally around!
Its called Right to Property. Like it or not, slaves WERE a specie of property acknowledged for over 250 years. Slave owners helped form the colonies. Slave-owners helped write the Constitution. Slave-owners helped fight the Revolution.
You may believe I'm cheerleading slavery if you wish, but it has more to do with holding the federal government to the terms of the Compact than it does with your perceptions.
The Constitution ISN'T Burger King....you don't get to have your Constitutional burger served up 'your way'.
-----
But I am sure you will regard Hillsdale college some 'leftwing' college and the lecturer as someone else who was brainwashed by the public school system.
ROFLMAO!
If Lincoln was adhering to Original Intent so closely, there should be a preponderance of evidence from the Founders to justify his actions.
Surely you can do better than posting some college professors lecture from 2008 as some type of rebuttal.
-----
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States, would bind the minority; in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes; or by considering the will of a majority of the States, as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules has been adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national Constitution.
Federalist, no. 39, James Madison, 16 Jan. 1788
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45, January 1788, James Madison
Ummmm...we're not a "nation," we're a Union as in "to form a more perfect Union." Might want to read Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of 1755 to better understand WHY the Framers chose the work "Union."
You've got your history all wrong, so did I until Dr. Walter Williams helped me take the blinders off. I know, I know, you think he's wrong to.
Are you coming back to respond to the facts that have been submitted by me, mamatexan and TJ1776?