Posted on 07/07/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by dennisw
Well sure. The principle they espoused was completely in contradiction to the "Rule by Divine right" basis of the British Monarchy, so there was no question that the Monarchy would attempt to stamp it out.
However, once they established the principle, you would think that subsequent caretakers of the government would then respect it. The principle of Independence was contrary to King George's law, but it was completely in Harmony with that of our own.
Lincoln Rebelled against the Principle as espoused in the Declaration of Independence. The Union were the Rebels.
There was no moral or legal justification for quitting the union.
I got your moral justification right here!
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
As for legal? The Declaration of Independence is the first legal document of the United States of America. The other two, (Articles of Confederation and US Constitution) derive their power and authority from the Declaration, and therefore it is superior to either of them. Indeed, it cites God as it's authority.
US Citizenship began July 4, 1776
Then why does it come up in these discussions? If it wasn't the reason the North invaded the South, then why does so much time get wasted on this side issue? Why do people like yourself keep bringing it up and introducing it into the conscience stream?
If it doesn't have anything to do with why the North Invaded, then how does the topic keep coming up from your side of the discussion?
So what you are saying is that American Slavery is okay because the conditions they endured were better than those in Africa?
You walked into that.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
That circumstance did not exist in 1860. No armies were marching into their towns and seizing their citizens or their property. There was no moral or legal justification for quitting the union. Being angry isn’t justification.
You're the only one bringing it up.
The Threat was from England, not from the South. Most of that Secessionist Independence movement was centered around New England, not the South. Much of the South wasn't even sure it wanted to separated from England until the Swamp Fox got the British to convince them that they did.
I’m saying that if you apply for it, get paid for it, and can quit anytime you want then it’s not slavery, it’s a job. But I applaud your efforts to find some moral equivalence to slavery. I assume you support a higher minimum wage here, too, right since you’re so concerned about the plight of low-wage workers.
Not at all. :)
c’mon, don’t sell yourself short - you hyperbole to excess.
The Declaration of Independence says they didn't.
Slaves probably averaged, in 1860, about $750. Total value of all slaves was around $3B. Which was about 48% of all wealth in the South, and around 19% of all wealth in the country.
And during this time, you can be enjoying your transgender celebrities and your mandatory gay awareness and sensitivity training.
:)
The DOL doesn’t reference the American Civil War at all.
Oh, well, that's different. "Accept this deal or someone else will kill you."
I don’t know about each state but:
in Massachusetts, a woman didn’t become a legal heir of her husband until around 1904. Before that a man’s children inherited his property when he died.
Well they didn't list them all, but "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The rest can be surmised to be along similar lines.
Just what I've been talking about. The expansion of liberty, not the expansion of slavery.
Now don't go getting anachronistic here. It said nothing for or against the "expansion of slavery", and given that it was practiced by many if not all of the signatories and all of the colonies which were signatories, one can only conclude that they had no intention of interfering with what was then a legal and accepted practice.
Don't go ex post facto here.
Whether a people will gain their independence is largely a function of military effectiveness. Which the Founders knew perfectly well.
Sure, when presenting these ideas to a Monarchy. When presenting them to a Republic that was founded on these very same ideas, there should not be any need for a Military confrontation because these principles were presumably acceptable to the Nation that created them and used them for their own Independence.
These ideas are of the same religion as the nation which created them. Adhering to these ideas should not cause conflict. The Foundational ground was flipped away from Divine Right Monarchy and towards the freedom of Popular Self Determination, a concept we have embraced for every other break off territory in the World except for our own.
Serbia/Croatia? Of course they have a right to Separate! Russia/Ukraine? Long live freedom and Independence! Philippines? Go in peace our Brethren. Cuba? Vaya con dios Amigos!
The Southern States? Get the F**K back in Line you Evil Bastards!
You may note that none of the secessionists contributed anything even vaguely similar, a paean to the spread of liberty.
The absence of pomp and circumstance does not abrogate a right. Independence ought not hinge on Crossed "T"s and dotted "I"s. Both sides knew that the Southern states wanted independence. Formalities would not have changed anyone's mind about anything.
Given to them by the King, or by the Declaration of Independence? Because if you say given to them by the Declaration of Independence, I must inform you that's who gave it to the Southerners too.
If given by the King, it's abrogated anyways, again, by the Declaration of Independence.
As long as "the People" are at least the size of the population of the Original Thirteen Colonies, (or larger) which we all agree was "big enough."
Right?
Sure, I'll agree that's big enough. But what about one state? Is that big enough? What about a county?
No, that was indeed a point I was trying very hard to make. Perhaps my eloquence was insufficient to convey the idea, but yes, that's what I meant.
The primary investments of southerners for 60 years had been in slaves. Their value was almost equal to all other wealth in the South combined. 48% of all wealth.
Yes, they basically got Anal raped financially, and the North's position is "It serves the Evil Slave Holders right to be left holding the bag when we changed the rules!"
Robbed of four score and seven years worth of Wealth Accumulation and murdered in sufficient quantities as necessary to quiet any dissent, and you more or less have their perspective on the events in discussion.
How do you think it might have reacted to 48%? With the additional fact that the value of much of the land itself was based on a labor force.
Nowadays? People would die by the millions. Back then they were made of hardier stuff and could squeak by surviving.
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.