Posted on 02/18/2005 11:27:18 PM PST by churchillbuff
Perhaps.
I think that later on, owners would have been more conducive to the idea. And the cost would be much less than what it would cost to fight the most destructive war in US History.
It does not give instruction to throw off tyrants either.
In retrospect, yes. But without that alternative to compare it to then any cost would have resulted in sticker shock. And it would still be a case of the government up North telling southern slaveowners that they had to give up their chattel becuase the government said so. The idea of that happening was important enough to rebel over in 1861, how much longer would it have taken before the south didn't believe that their 'peculiar institution' was worth fighting for?
Do I get a cookie?
There was such a law in place.
The analogy is valid. Now, how about it?
The analogy is idiotic.
It is your opininion that unilateral secession is not prohibited. The Supreme Court has disagreed with you.
The Supreme Court has also said that the murder of our children is a Constitutional Right.
They are wrong about that and they are wrong about Secession.
Activist Judges, be they Supremes or not, are a plague on this Republic and will remain so until they are removed from office.
The Fact remains that there is no power given to the Federal Government to prevent Secession by ANY state. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, that power resides solely with the states.
In your opinion, perhaps. But unless the decision is overturned by a future court or the Constitution is amended the abortion is still legal and unilateral secession is not. The fact that you or I agree with it or disagree with it is meaningless.
The Fact remains that there is no power given to the Federal Government to prevent Secession by ANY state. Therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, that power resides solely with the states.
The Fact remains that you are wrong on that.
Perhaps the answer lies in the heads of the overwhelming majority of the people in this country, North and South. To say that racism ran strong in the U.S. is an understatement. Blacks would never be accepted as equals, you had a Supreme Court decision that said they couldn't even be accepted as citizens. Hatred and mistrust of blacks were the norm. Perhaps Lincoln, knowing that they would never be accepted as equals and suspecting the problems that they would be facing, saw colonization as a chance for them to carve out their own future, free from the hatred and discrimination that they were sure to face here?
If he had succeeded this would be a different nation, and his legacy would be assured.
BUMP
The Fact remains that you are wrong on that.
It is plain that I will not change your mind, and you will not change mine. Your opinion is no more valid than mine, but I do have the document in black and white on my side, therefore I will go with what is on the written document and wish you good day.
Since you're so up on abiding by Supreme Court opinions, then ALL uncompensated confiscation of Southern property was illegal, because that was what SCOTUS had decided before the war.
You had a Supreme Court decision that noted that numerous states - Southern and Northern - denied citizenship to blacks. That same decision noted that FEDERAL law only granted naturalization to WHITES.
Confiscating property used to support an illegal rebellion is a different matter entirely, as the Supreme Court found in a post war decision. So of course I support the Administration's decision in this area.
And couldn't grant it to blacks even if it wanted to. You forgot that part.
And I have a Supreme Court decision on mine. Oh wait, I forgot, only decisions you agree with are valid, aren't they?
The problem for you is that it was illegal BEFORE the war, and declared LEGAL in 1870. Thus it was ILLEGAL DURING the war.
If you care to continue this tack, I'll state that unilateral secession was legal BEFORE the war, and only declared illegal AFTER the war. Thus secession, was not illegal before or during the war.
Nothing to forget. Oh wait, I forgot. It's a Supreme Court decision. 'Only decisions you agree with are valid, aren't they?'
And where did I say that Scott v Sandford wasn't a valid decision? I may not agree with it, but the Court made their decision and we had to live with it.
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.