The Union And Confederacy Contradictions In Freedoms And Rights

The Sierra Times ^ | April 10,2003 | Dorothy Anne Seese

[Non-Sequitur]

Slaves in the North had to wait till after the war for freedom.

As well as those living in areas of the south that had been restored to local control when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Don't forget about them.

[Hacksaw]

True, but as the Supreme Court ruled in 1869, unilateral secession as practiced by the southern states was illegal. It was the manner in which they chose to act, not the act of secession itself which was wrong.

A court ruling after the fact is meaningless. It is like saying that since the Warren court legalized abortion, anti-abortion laws were always unconstitutional.

[Non-Sequitur]

A court ruling after the fact is meaningless. It is like saying that since the Warren court legalized abortion, anti-abortion laws were always unconstitutional.

Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court is supposed to issue ruling before the fact? How is that supposed to work?

The Supreme Court always rules on the constitutionality of matters made prior to the court hearing the case. And yes, the court can rule that such actions were unconstitutional when passed and always were unconstitutional. That's the way the court works. When the court ruled that the southern states had violated the constitution when they passed their secession legislation, it ruled that those laws had no basis in law and were invalid from day one. That decision was entirely valid and proper, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

[Badray]

. . ."one nation, indivisible. Do rebels who are still fighting the Civil War say that part of the Pledge of Allegiance?"

Actually, I do pause when I get to that part.

[SCDogPapa]

You too? :)

[Badray]

"You too? :)"

Yep, and I was born and raised in PA. I have always been a rebel at heart. The fact that I love my country is the reason I hate what has happened to it's government and what it is trying to do to us.

The way I look at it, if Lincoln was any damn good, would the government schools be saying nice things about him?

[SCDogPapa]

"Yep, and I was born and raised in PA. I have always been a rebel at heart. The fact that I love my country is the reason I hate what has happened to it's government and what it is trying to do to us."

Well bless your rebel heart!! :)

"The way I look at it, if Lincoln was any damn good, would the government schools be saying nice things about him?"

No. You know how it goes, once you tell a lie, you have to back it up with another and another and so on.

On the Pledge, I don't say "indivisible",,,because I don't think it ever was and will not stay that way. Maybe not in my lifetime, but someday, it will divide again. BUT I to love this country.

[Colt .45]

"The States surrendered their right to unilaterally secede when the signed the Articles of Confederation. "

Its time to throw my hat into the ring here. your statement is the dumbest thing I've ever read. You need to go back and study up on your history. When the Constitution was ratified, the repealed Articles of Confederation were null, void, and of no force. Now during the ratification debates, several legislatures of the respective States (Virginia, Rhode Island, Massachusettes, South Carolina, and others) incorporated ordinances in their respective States to the effect of (quoting from the Virginia Ordinance of 1788) "We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation of the General Assembly and now et in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of teh Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon, do in the name 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."

It was well understood at the framing of the Constitution that if the Federal Government was ever to become usurping of its Constitutionally mandated limited powers to the extent that States felt that their "Pursuit of Happiness" was no longer being looked after, that delegated power could be resumed by the People.

Amendment X of the United States Constitution - "The powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

'Amendment X added nothing new, but was meant to stress again that the regular governments of the several States and of the Union were but public corporations, not vessels but creatures of sovereign power; that, as between these regular governments, what was not granted to the Union was reserved to the several States; and that sovereign power, including the prerogative to make or unmake the constitution and the Union, WAS VESTED IN THE PEOPLE, NOT OF ONE NATION, BUT OF THE SEVERAL STATES.' - 'A Constitutional History of Secession' - John Remington Graham

[Colt .45]

"Show me where is specifically allows unilateral secession and I'll agree with you."

Article X of the Bill of Rights!

[contributor]

There was no motivation by the aristocracy to do it, and for white tradesmen, the thought of freed slaves competing against them would have been anathema.

Slavery would have certainly disappeared with the invention of the automatic cotton picker. Since most people of the South did not own slaves, it was hardly an issue for most Southerners.

What the majority of the South did not want was a chaotic situation where competing with freed blacks would have destabilized both society and the economy. Perhaps, this isn't right, but the North was no better in this matter. They just wanted the South to have deal with the problem while they pretended moral superitrity. Most Northern states did not allow blacks the right to vote at the time of the Civil War. Also they are the ones who wanted Sotuthern blacks to be treated as nothing more than property politically, thus resulting in the 3/5 compromise. (Yes, I know it was politics, but the facts stand.)

I can withstand the simpleton, "it was all about slavery" arguments, but what irks me are the infantile "the North was morally superior arguments."

[Aurelius]

"....the only purpose intended of the Emancipation Proclamation (aside from the slight hope it might lure some seceded states back into the Union with the hope they might then keep their slaves) and the only purpose that it actually served, was to sway British and European opinion to favor the Union." (Post 77)

It freed no slaves.

[canalabamian]

Interesting point about the 3/5 compromise. I've never thought of it from that perspective. Thanks.