Posted on 06/04/2012 6:00:58 AM PDT by BigReb555
Any rebellion based on resistance to the arguably unconstitutional forced liberation of human slaves is a rebellion that is morally bankrupt.
The undeniable truths in the Declaration of Independence are pure and justify any “rebellion” by Washington and Jefferson.
There is no purity in a rebellion triggered by opposition to the imposed liberation of human slaves.
Well said and true. South Carolina thanks you.
I suppose the poster calling Jeff Davis a traitor would infer that all southerners were traitors, Lee, Jackson, and all the Confederate soldiers as well.
I say that poster does not know Southern history, let alone American history.
I guess some yankees would have us all shot even today, yet how many of them wish their state would secede now and leave the liberals and obama in ‘another country’?
“Any rebellion based on resistance to the arguably unconstitutional forced liberation of human slaves is a rebellion that is morally bankrupt.”
What’s worse? Fighting against the forced liberation of human slaves or fighting for the forced bondage of men to the government? Neither side was morally commendable in that war.
Ones man's freedom fighter is another man's rebel...
And if the South still sucks to this day, why do these Yankees keep moving down here...
No, no, no.
It is always justified to liberate a slave, even if it would be unconstitutional to do so. No constitution can properly prevent the liberation of slaves. A constitution that permits slavery need not be heeded because it is illegitimate in the most profound way. To rise up against slavery even without amending such a constitution is morally valid. Just as if today the president would station troops outside of abortion clinics to shut them down, despite it being “against the law”, the laws are radically unjust in that they enshrine innocent-child-murder as a right.
But you can keep pretending that slavery was a little black mark, and not the gigantic festering cancer that it was.
Lincoln was a hero even if he acted outside the constitution.
Davis did not have such profound injustice in his corner.
A CSA patriot is a USA traitor.
Actually, the original 13 states ratified(i.e, approved) the Constitution in state legislatures. They created a federal government. They needed no approval from Congress SINCE CONGRESS NEVER APPROVED THEIR STATEHOOD.
Thus, VA, NC, SC, GA broke no law when they seceeded. Likewise, TX was free to seceed having been unique among the states as a republic prior to staehood.
>>, one too many pucks to your head?<<
Exactly the kind of intelligent comment I would expect from a DU troll.
_________________________________________
What were their names, were they the only two Blacks in America and how did they get here in the first place?
Anthony Johnson, a former indentured servant who’d served out his term of indenture was the owner. John Casor was the indentured servant who became the first chattel slave, owned by Anthony Johnson. Northampton County, Virginia, early 1600’s.
Pretty much.
However, IMO, at the time it was possible for an entirely honorable man to choose to follow either his nation or his state.
Davis and Lee chose to follow their states. I have never seen any reason to believe they made their choices for anything but honorable reasons.
Another Davis, the Alabamian Grimes, was one of the best Union cavalry officers. http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/davis/davis.htm
And of course one of the most inappropriately ignored Union generals, Henry (The Rock of Chickamauga) Thomas, chose to follow the Union despite having his family disown him and his state confiscate all his property.
Such men were placed in a position where they had to choose between treason to their nation and to their state.
One could say that, but I wouldn’t.
“They wouldn’t have expected to park US troops at a fort in Canada and gotten away with it, would they?”
If the fort belonged to the United States government they would.
SCOTUS disagreed with your assessment.
It could do so with the consent of the country as a whole. When territories petition Congress for admission to the union, Congress admits them. Presumably, if a state wanted to be "de-admitted" Congress could do that as well.
That would give all the parties concerned a chance to work out the terms of dissolution, rather than make it a matter of one will against another, each appealing to arms in order to prevail. A constitutional convention could also dissolve the union, though that's a much riskier procedure.
150 years ago, we had a President from Illinois who started a war against the states, disregarding the Constitution and freed the slaves. Today, we have a President from Illinois who is waging war against the states, disregards the Constitution and wants to make us all slaves.
Part of the problem then and now is that people throw around words like "slave" and "slavery" rhetorically and ignore what slavery actually is and who actually is enslaved.
That sort of overblown rhetoric makes meaningful discussion difficult. At some point you have to recognize at the very least that there are very different degrees or gradations of "slavery" -- some a lot more real than others.
And who did actually start that war? Who fought it for that matter? It wasn't the federal government versus "the states." There was another purported national government involved, one with all the powers of Lincoln's -- and then some.
Now, how did those Black guys get here, on the Mayflower?
1. “Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, a negro colonist living in Northampton County, convinced a court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.”
2. There is never a dumb question just inquisitive idiots...wait, that really was a dumb question.
3. Go read about it and stop relying on your public school education that lied to you in the first place.
“Now, how did those Black guys get here, on the Mayflower?”
Seriously, are you really that stupid? The Mayflower? Is that really the limit of your historical knowledge?
“With the consent of Congress..the same way you came in.
“
I don’t remember reading about that in the Constitution. Can you point us to that specific clause?
“Lincoln was a hero even if he acted outside the constitution.”
How’s that? He never stepped outside the Constitution to free a single slave. In fact, contrary to popular belief due to public school system propaganda, Lincoln didn’t free the slaves, the 13th Amendment did.
“SCOTUS disagreed with your assessment.”
SCOTUS also thinks the government also has the right to take any and all property simply to sell it for government profit under the eminent domain clause.
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.