Posted on 06/06/2012 6:18:45 AM PDT by CNSNews.com
Article 4.
The South fired first at Sumter.
****************************************
Yes they did.LOL. Details Details. You think ole Abe would have just let the South go with out a shot? He was pretty determined to keep the Union together wasn’t he?
Two words: Morrill Tariff:
http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html
Our new nation was a gold and silver currency and then paperbacks backed by gold and silver
Plus how many now depend on the Feds for SS and Medicare
You are deluding yourself
Whatever currency works is what should be done. Why do you presume that whatever didn’t work in the past is what will automatically be the default mode of operation in the future? You are asserting that just because a new nation attempts to emerge, it automatically will fail. Either you are part of the status RINOs or an outright leftist.
The Morrill Tariff didn’t pass until after the south cut~n~run.
"Allowed" had nothing to do with it then, nor would it now. It was a matter of tactics and numbers. This time the numbers might be in favor of seccession. After all, the North can't use the slave card this time. Furthermore all states, North and South, are now feeling the bite of tyranny.
It a whole new situation this day and age.
That’s a pretty broad answer. Care to elaborate?
How about a REALIST
OK, I’ll play...
South Carolina
I think ... people see that the federal system is not working, and that there is apparently no way to bring it to heel, that it will just keep growing and growing and encroaching and encroaching. Thus more are coming to believe that it must be dissolved.
Better than asking people if states DO have the right to secede, under the current general understanding of the word ‘right,’ why not ask if states SHOULD have the right to secede?
The civil war came about because the nation elected a president from the Abolition Party, the upstart Republican Party, over repeated warnings from the southern states of ‘over our dead bodies.’ They realized that if the North had sufficient electoral power to elect a radical Republican as president, then the South was doomed one way or another, sooner or later. The slavery issue was the one that had divided the nation into two camps that couldn’t stand the sight of each other though. It was what motivated people to be willing to go and fight - although it wasn’t a settled matter in the North either, by any means.
Ah yes, my point - that was then and this is now. It’s not a foregone conclusion that the ferals will take up arms against any that try to get out. They might find that the whole military defects too. You can’t know. Everybody is so wussified these days.
It mandated the return of slaves to the South. It counted slaves as 3/5 of a person in the context of apportionment, a compromise made with the southern states to woo them into the union. Lastly, it outlawed the importation of slaves starting in 1808. These are hardly laws that greatly protected and perpetuated the institution of slavery.
If you want to see the protection of slavery in a constitution, I suggest you read the Confederate States of America constitution where states completely lost the ability to restrict the right to own slaves.
Well, I asked what state of the USA, not what state of the CSA. Point being, it’s a little silly to claim Southern aggression started the war, when they were firing at US troops on Confederate territory. What were the US troops doing there if not committing a deliberate act of aggression themselves?
So if we accept the premises that the civil war was illegal and contrived, though its end was ethical where does that leave us? It's a can of worms to be sure.
Lincoln inserted four arguments against the right of secession in his first inaugural address.
Thanks, I still had the deleted “Jefferson clause” (from the DOI) in my head from an earlier conversation.
The Constitution contained enough protections that it required the 13th Amendment to nullify them.
Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued importation of slaves.
Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited citizens from providing assistance to escaping slaves and required the return of chattel property to owners.
These formed the foundation for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 and served as precedent in Prigg v. Pennsylvania.
And, as you mentioned, Section 2 of Article I designated “other persons” (slaves) to be added to the total of the state’s free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number.
Combined, there was no one who seriously disputed the legal authority under which the southern slavers continued their exploitation of slave labor.
I agree that the csa constitution memorialized The Particular Institution.
That was in dispute with many believing that there never was a "CSA" as a legal entity.
Point being, it’s a little silly to claim Southern aggression started the war, when they were firing at US troops on Confederate territory. What were the US troops doing there if not committing a deliberate act of aggression themselves?
They were there as per orders defending a United States federal fortification.
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.