Posted on 07/31/2017 2:39:22 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
I think it has much more to do with the 17th amendment and not the desire of a bunch of slave holders wanting to maintain their evil economic system in a supposed free society.
The vague and broadly written parts of the 14th amendment was the source of all the abuses I mentioned in the previous message. "Gay Marriage" was an "equal treatment" issue stemming from the 14th. "Abortion" came out of the "penumbra" of the 14th amendment. And so forth.
and not the desire of a bunch of slave holders wanting to maintain their evil economic system in a supposed free society.
This would be a more persuasive argument if you could explain how they wouldn't have an evil economic system if they had remained in the Union.
It is dishonest to argue justification for attacking them based on conditions that wouldn't have changed had they remained in the Union.
Arsenals were not abandoned.
It was clearly an insurrection. There is no constitutional provision for state conventions to declare an end to the Union. The constitution is the ruling document, not the Declaration. It was settled in 1787 that there was NO conditional ratification and no right to leave without constitutional authority.
There was no threat to any Slaver right except the right to be a slaver. All other claims are just attempts to disguise the real issue.
The Confederacy ATTACKED federal institutions. This ensured a war.
Slavery would have continued for some time but would have been legally removed at some point in keeping with the gradual elimination underway since 1808. This could have taken many forms. It would have cost less to just buy the slaves’ freedom and manumit them.
The North fought to preserve the Union, the South to preserve slavery.
No Constitutional method?
There’s nothing stating they CAN’T. They may, as per the Declaration, dissolve the bonds, as needed/necessary.
The majority will does not compel the minority in ANY way.
The Declaration is the document from which the Constitution draws it's own legitimacy. The child cannot exist without the parent.
It was settled in 1787 that there was NO conditional ratification and no right to leave without constitutional authority.
You cannot "settle" God's law. According to the Declaration, God grants the right to independence, not men.
If you are going to argue that men have authority to set a "perpetual allegiance" requirement, then so too did the British men who set such a requirement over every British Subject.
We must either reject it all, or we must accept it all. You cannot have half of one thing and half of the other. The two things are based on mutually exclusive principles.
There was no threat to any Slaver right except the right to be a slaver. All other claims are just attempts to disguise the real issue.
The real issue is whether the nation was founded on the principle that people have a right to independence or not. The issue is *NOT* slavery. The Founders were slavers too, but this didn't stop them from declaring a right to independence. Slavery is just a red herring meant to distract attention away from the true focus of this debate.
The Confederacy ATTACKED federal institutions. This ensured a war.
The Confederacy responded in the only manner possible to the notice given them that a War Fleet had sailed from New York with the intentions of opening fire on them. When a bigger man swings at you, you have to try to beat him to the punch.
Slavery would have continued for some time but would have been legally removed at some point in keeping with the gradual elimination underway since 1808.
There were 11 Confederate States and 5 Union states that practiced slavery. Assuming all would vote "No", In order to create a constitutional amendment by having enough states to produce a 3/4ths majority, you would have to have 64 states in the Union.
Even with only the 11th states of the Confederacy, it would have required 44 states to create an amendment overturning slavery. The earliest possible point at which that could happen was 1890, which was 28 years later. (from 1861)
So it was completely impossible for the Union to get rid of slavery (except by the extortion method they used) for 28 more years. Realistically, probably more like another 100 years.
So why get on the moral high horse about slavery when the Union was going to keep it going for the foreseeable future?
The North fought to preserve the Union, the South to preserve slavery.
That's just propaganda. The South was going to keep slavery if it had remained in the Union, so they weren't fighting *FOR* something the Union was already giving them, they were fighting for something the Union refused to give them.
It's called "Independence", and according to the Declaration of Independence, it is a right granted by God, not men.
The Union invaded them, and the People fought to expel the invaders from their homeland. It's that simple.
The whole point of the Constitution was to create a more perfect, “perpetual” union. Argue with Madison, not me. Once a state was in that union the only certain means of leaving would be a constitutional amendment
Even the Slavers knew that, and that it would never get out constitutionally so they held an insurrection better named “the RAT Rebellion”.
Morality meant anti-slavery sentiment. Opposition was growing among the Northern population and perhaps even the Southern people. But the Slaverocracy was totalitarian wrt to free speech, free press and free discussion of ideas about slavery so we will never know.
The declaration justified independent because of the colonists belief that the Crown was attempting “...the Establishment of an Absolute Tyranny over these states.”
Not only was there no Tyranny but there was no MEANS of tyranny. The federal government was so tiny that it took nearly two years to field effective armies. So the Slavers’ claim being based on the DoI was fallacious.
Since the Founders were attempting to form a more perfect union they included the means of changing the document the nation was created upon. Their greatest fear was the oscillation of factions overthrowing then establishing government only to have it overthrown in turn.
One might be able to launch an reasonable argument that the Confederation was formed upon the DoI but that government had to be changed and was. But the unavoidable truth is that the DoI was a rhetorical device not a founding document.
The actual result was the absence of the Southern congressman allowed the overthrow of slavery. Smart. Of course the Confederacy did not do very much that was smart it was its own worst enemy.
God’s law does not endorse slavery and there is little doubt that the Founders did not believe the institution would last forever. It was only after the Cotton Gin that the Slavers started to claim is was a positive good. The Founders did not they blamed it on the British in the DoI.
The Insurrection was PRECISELY because of slavery, that was the only reason the slavers revolted.
So the US Navy had to get the approval of those in insurrection? I don’t think so.
Slaver fear of Lincoln wrt to slavery was the ONLY reason it tried insurrection. Their fears was justifiable considering they were running a pre-feudal economic system against the course of history. Morality was turning against the institution world-wide. Lincoln was correct on meeting Harriet Beecher Stowe. “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war.”
In its essence that was a war about morality and humanity.
It is not up to them. The decision to secede lies with the people of CA and no one else. I wish them success in their attempt.
Out right lie right there. The US Constitution is silent on the issue of state secession. White vs Texas didn't rewrite the US Constitution.
Care to post the article and section of the US Constitution regarding secession? answer: YOU CAN'T.
The matter of slavery was settled. The question of secession has not been.
All those federal outlays are pay-go now. So the taxes that Californians were paying to DC to fund that stuff will just now go to Sacramento. Same same.
Wait, you are saying that Portugal can make it as an independent country but California couldn’t? What kind of retarded thinking is that?
Because you say so, right Mussolini?
Where do I sign?
THERE.IS.NOTHING.IN.THE.U.S.CONSTITUTION.REGARDING.STATE.SECESSION.THE.U.S.CONSTITUTION.IS.SILENT.ON.THE.ISSUE.
How convenient, the Sacramento Bee has banned me from commenting on their website under my Facebook name........
I don't know.... California would most likely quickly become a territory of Mexico.... MEXICO WOULD KICK NORTH KOREA'S ASS IF THEY DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT..!! (snort) :)
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.