Perhaps this helps?
Posted on 07/22/2020 3:14:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Confederacy has been the excuse for some of today's rioting, property destruction and grossly uninformed statements. Among the latter is the testimony before the House Armed Services Committee by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley in favor of renaming Confederate-named military bases. He said: "The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution."
There are a few facts about our founding that should be acknowledged. Let's start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay, and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that "New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States."
Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: "A union of the states containing such an ingredient [would] provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
During the ratification debates, Virginia's delegates said, "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." The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States. Ratification of the Constitution was by no means certain. States feared federal usurpation of their powers. If there were a provision to suppress a seceding state, the Constitution would never have been ratified. The ratification votes were close with Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts voting in favor by the slimmest of margins. Rhode Island initially rejected it in a popular referendum and finally voted to ratify -- 34 for, 32 against.
Most Americans do not know that the first secessionist movement started in New England. Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington's secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, "The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government." Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III, and Joseph Story shared his call for secession. While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.
Even on the eve of the War of 1861, unionist politicians saw secession as a state's right. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, "Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty." New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): "An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil -- evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent." The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."
Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain's King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.
Four to one odds in a fight usually win. Nothing to be proud of. Really it should be shame felt that the one managed to whip so hard on the four for so long, and with a little different luck might have whipped the four.
Or was it five to one?
The Founders made the same choice. In fact, they declared that they didn't have to ask permission to exercise a right given to them by God. The only difference was that George III was not as willing to shed so much blood as was Lincoln.
George III could have won. He chose *NOT* to keep killing people. Lincoln made the opposite choice.
This.
I am contemplating whether I would rather have a Civil War than a Democrat Presidency won by fraud and corruption.
The critical question will be, whether the American military?
I would like to believe the Military would do the right thing, but after seeing what Obama was allowed to do to them, I now have no illusions that they will follow the orders of the American dictator if he has a "D" after his name.
They were already so, and I have long argued that this is the primary reason why Lincoln sent a war fleet to trigger a war, and thereafter sent armies to invade them.
A confederacy left alone would have quickly have taken over the border states, (Through economics alone) the territories and become a horrible financial threat to the Robber Barons of the North East.
The Civil War was fought to keep the money power in Northern hands, and those hands alone. "Slavery" was just tacked on later to keep people from seeing the real reason for invading the South.
I have come to believe that was it's only intended purpose. I seem to get more cynical with each passing year. It's about power. It's always about power.
This existing election is about *POWER*. Not about what is best for the nation.
You were doing so well up to this point. In what way was secession intended to "preserve" slavery? Was it not legal in the United States at the time? Did not Lincoln urge the passage of an amendment to keep slavery legal so long as any state wanted it?
The point here is that "slavery" did not need to be preserved, it was already preserved. It was not under threat of any sort. (Other than Antifa like lunatics such as John Brown, deliberately staging attacks.)
So did the South secede to "preserve" that which did not need preserving, or did the secede for some other reason?
(Such as getting back the 60% of their export value that currently went to New York City and Washington DC.)
Indeed, and he clearly told his armies to point guns at the people of the Southern states and *FORCE* them to do his bidding on ratification.
Which pretty much makes the ratification illegitimate so far as I can tell, but some of you probably think it's okay for Armies to force people to "vote" for something if you happen to agree with whatever it is they are being forced to do.
Now New York and Rhode Island also do not say the people of New York or Rhode Island, it only says to the people. As in “We the people”.
None of those ratification documents reserve any right to “secede” and are perfectly in line with this supreme court decision;
You are experiencing cognitive dissonance here. What you are claiming their words mean, makes no sense. It only makes sense if those powers go back to their respective states.
You just want to believe what you want to believe, and you have a mental block preventing you from seeing it any other way.
And Rhode Island had to have it's arm twisted hard by the other states to force it to ratify the US Constitution a year after other states did so. They didn't want to ratify it at all.
If Biden's party cheats him into office, I can't wait to see how much you are going to enjoy America. Biden's America is going Soviet, and I dare say you are going to start thinking seriously about secession yourself at some point.
Either that or follow your own advice and "leave", though I don't know where you would go that would be less socialist than here.
The US Constitution listed no such procedure because the topic was quite amply covered in the Declaration of Independence 11 years previously.
No further thing needed to be said about it in the US Constitution.
I'm wondering if you are aware that at the time of this nation's founding (July 4, 1776) every single state was a slave state?
Thomas Jefferson's efforts to introduce anti-slavery commentary into the Declaration were rejected and overridden by the other members of the committee because that would have blown apart the coalition before it even tried to form.
So "Tolerated" isn't quite right. "Accepted with misgivings" is probably more accurate.
If you accept the meaning in place of "words", they absolutely did. Article IV, Section 2 uses the word "Labor" as a euphemism for "slavery", but the meaning is clearly intended to be "slavery."
Accept the reality as it is, not as you would have it be.
Did you escape from rehab?
You are aware that the participants in holding a "constitutional convention" absolutely broke and violated the requirements of the Articles of Confederation which required Unanimous approval by all states? (Rhode Island refused to participate.)
If they would not obey their own laws regarding the Articles of Confederation, then you cannot claim the Articles of Confederation as some sort of governing authority over the powers of the States.
The procedure for leaving was explained in the Declaration of Independence, which *IS* the founding document of this nation. The US Constitution is the second addendum to it.
I've noticed people of Irish descent often tend to be obnoxious pricks. They can also be very enjoyable people. Sometimes both at the same time.
Did a DNA test on my mom a few years ago. She's 42% Irish. I guess that's where I get some of my stubborn pig headedness.
I keep pointing out to people that 1860 Republicans were big city liberals connected to Robber Barons and willing to use government power to not only "Tax and Spend" but to reward their powerful business contacts with lucrative laws that greatly benefited them to the detriment of everyone else.
In other words, 1860 Republicans had most of the same ideology as 2020 Democrats. 1860 Republicans created "the Swamp", and the "Deep State" corruptocracy. There is a reason that the worst period of government corruption occurred right after the Lincoln Presidency. He brought all that corruption in with him.
The holding was correct. Dred Scott could not be freed by the laws of a "Free" state. The reasoning to justify the holding had a lot of holes in it, but the holding itself was factually correct under the existing constitutional law.
And it was nullified by a "constitutional amendment" which was forced through the Southern states by the points of guns.
Perhaps this helps?
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.