The point is that they had the right to withdraw their consent to the Constitution. The government belongs to the people and when they decide that it no longer serves their needs, they have the right to change it.
Someone once wrote that we chartered ourselves a government just like someone might charter a bus. If you hired a bus to go to Florida, but the driver insisted on going to Maine, you have every right to get off the bus. If a group of people go together and charter the bus and some decide in the middle of the trip that they no longer want to go where the bus is going, they have the right to get off. It's the same way with government.
We hired it. When it no longer does what we want it to do, we have the right to fire it. This is the best protection of our rights that we have.
The people of the south had no right to oppose the clear intent of the constitution to abolish slavery, as Article I section 9, infers. - They chose violent rebellion to resolve political differences over human rights, in the stead of constitutional remedies. Big mistake. Their fellow citizens had every right to enforce & defend the constitution & the entire republic from such a division.
They did not choose violent rebellion. They chose peaceful separation. They sent a delegation to Washington to pay for any federal property that was within the states and to arrange to pay the South's portion of the national debt. They did demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, and had been promised that it would be surrendered. When it became apparant that Lincoln was going to break that promise, they took the fort by force.
Also, Article I, section 9 does not imply an intent to abolish slavery. It was put in the Constitution to keep the federal government from doing so.
The point is that they had the right to withdraw their consent to the Constitution. The government belongs to the people and when they decide that it no longer serves their needs, they have the right to change it.
Nope, they had no right to 'withdraw consent' because of ending slavery. Their rights were not being violated.
------------------------------------------
The people of the south had no right to oppose the clear intent of the constitution to abolish slavery, as Article I section 9, infers. - They chose violent rebellion to resolve political differences over human rights, in the stead of constitutional remedies. Big mistake. Their fellow citizens had every right to enforce & defend the constitution & the entire republic from such a division.
They did not choose violent rebellion. They chose peaceful separation. They sent a delegation to Washington to pay for any federal property that was within the states and to arrange to pay the South's portion of the national debt. They did demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, and had been promised that it would be surrendered. When it became apparant that Lincoln was going to break that promise, they took the fort by force.
You deny what you admit. -- They initiated force, they rebelled.
Also, Article I, section 9 does not imply an intent to abolish slavery. It was put in the Constitution to keep the federal government from doing so.
Before 1808. -- You are in simple denial again.