Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp
That's nonsense. Had the South simply quit fighting and submitted to rule by Washington D.C., there would never have been a 14th amendment. Again, Lincoln was willing to keep slavery for the first 2 1/2 years of the War.

I don't think that the South should have ever begun fighting. But, they though that "secession" was the only way to delay abolition. Who knows if they were right about that? It's anybody's guess how long they could have continued owning people if they had won their rebellion. But, they lost and it was that loss that made the 14th Amendment seem to be politically possible and necessary.

I think you're probably right about the chances of repealing the 14th Amendment, but I suspect that you're wrong about the reasons. The fact is that it is more popular than you think.

Read the 1st Amendment and ask yourself if, without the 14th Amendment, states and local governments might be able to deprive you of many of your most basic rights. Whose power is limited by the 1st Amendment and whose power is limited the the 14th?

A lot of people don't trust state and local governments any more than they trust the Federal government when it comes to protecting basic rights of speech, press, religion or assembly. Politicians are politicians and they don't like criticism.

59 posted on 09/07/2015 11:04:37 AM PDT by Tau Food (Never give a sword to a man who can't dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: Tau Food
It's anybody's guess how long they could have continued owning people if they had won their rebellion.

It's guaranteed that they would have continued owning people had they submitted to Lincoln early in the war. Quit ignoring that fact.

You want to keep hammering the Immorality of owning people, then you need to hammer on Lincoln for agreeing to continue it. Stop giving him a pass.

But, they lost and it was that loss that made the 14th Amendment seem to be politically possible and necessary.

It is only that loss that made it possible. Had they never seceded, slavery would have continued. Had they not had Union guns pointed at their heads, they never would have voted to ratify it. Not only is the 14th amendment horrible in it's results, it is horrible in the way it was coerced into existence.

What is the point of this pretense of "ratification" when the State legislatures were merely the Puppets being manipulated by their Union Masters? The Union ordered them to ratify it, because they wanted to create the illusion that there was still a "democratic" process, but the reality was quite different. The Illusion was for the Papers, but the masters of the Union intended to have their power grab.

Read the 1st Amendment and ask yourself if, without the 14th Amendment, states and local governments might be able to deprive you of many of your most basic rights.

Wasn't a problem for the first "four score and seven years" of the Nation's existence. Why would it have been a problem thereafter?

62 posted on 09/07/2015 11:28:14 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson