Posted on 12/28/2023 7:53:13 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
You are dodging the question I actually asked. The question I asked was would they have a right to secede if they had a better reason for doing so?
As to states’ rights, I agree with James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” who strongly opposed the argument that secession was permitted by the Constitution.
I always get a kick out of it when people offer James Madison's letter, written 40 years after the Constitution was ratified as evidence that states couldn't secede, when James Madison himself sat on the Virginia committee that drafted Virginia's ratification statement which absolutely says Virginia can resume it's powers given up to the Federal government.
"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: "
So Madison speak with forked tongue? 40 years later, Madison was loath to see the government he helped create be rent in two, and so of course he did not want to lend any support for the idea, even though James Madison as a member of the body who drafted the language said the very opposite.
I would suspect that it was more the economic impact the abolition of slavery would have rather than some devilish drive to keep people subjected. Very few southerners “owned” slaves. The common southern man in the street/private in the trench was no more and no less interested in the plight of slaves than his counterpart on the Union side. That comnbined with other federal government doucheness broke the camel’s back. Whatever the case may be, the war was a tragedy of biblical proportions that shouldn’t have happened. Slavery would have been long gone in a decade or so.
Chomo Joe was there leading the Dog Faced Pony Soldiers against Patton at Bunker Hill...
To put it your way, like Madison I’d be loath to see the union sundered.
Speaking of unanswered questions, what is your position on the cause of secession?
Greed. Specifically control of 700 million per year in trade with the North and Europe which in 1860, was completely controlled by Northern interests.
Due to Northern control of congress, laws had been enacted that resulted in Northern companies having taken over virtually all aspects of Southern trade, and according to references I have read, 60% of the total income remained in the pockets of those Northern interests.
The Southern men were not stupid, they could see how their revenues were being siphoned off from them and used to enrich the North, and the following is an example of a speech in which this economic warfare against the South was recognized and called out.
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm
The South was producing 72% of the total tax revenue for the nation, but the majority of it was spent in the North, to promote Northern industry and Northern interests. They were the milk cow for the North.
If their only reason for seceding was slavery, then the Corwin Amendment would have addressed all their concerns. The fact that it didn't tells us that slavery was not the primary bone of contention between the North and the South.
Money is always the reason for wars. If someone tries to tell you it's about some moral issue, just ask to see the financial records, and you will quickly realize what the truth is.
There was the control of 700 Million dollars per year (In a 4 billion GDP economy) at stake, and the North was going to lose that control while the South was going to gain it.
The powerful men of the North were not going to have that, and urged Lincoln to go to war to stop it.
But whether control of this money is the real cause of secession or not, the salient question is "Does a nation founded on the Declaration of Independence have a right to stop other states from gaining independence?"
Is Secession a right, as the Declaration says it is, or is there some other legal argument that overrides what the Declaration says?
Do not believe DiogenesLamp.
He may not even believe what he is saying.
Biden did no such thing.
700 million per year controlled by Northern interests is an awful lot of incentive for war.
Are you at all familiar with the Robber Baron class of the Northeastern establishment?
According to him slavery was just a footnote.
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.