Gods, Generals and the War

Southern warriors were as patriotic as Northerners, but their patriotism was more local. "I love the Union," Stonewall Jackson says, "but I love Virginia more."

What Rich fails to realize is the history and form of government of the United States.

You see, prior to Lincoln turning our country from a FEDERAL REPUBLIC into a NATION, the STATE was the premier center of loyalty.

Federalism allowed citizens of the republic to "vote with their feet" by moving to a state that more closely matched their beliefs and values. But now that we have a CENTRALIZED, NATIONAL government where all states have to be essentially the SAME, American citizens no longer have that option. Might as well not have states when you have such a strong NATIONAL government (I can't bear to call it the "federal government" any more).

No, Rich, this brand of loyalty died along with Jackson and the rest of the Confederacy. Now we have only the central government to be loyal to, and I'll bet you have trouble with even that as long there's a Preseident with an (R) behind his name.

Laws regarding inter-state commerce (sorry to my African-American brothers & sisters, but at the time the slave trade was commerce) are certainly the province of a federal government. Otherwise, states rights are meaningless.

In other words, the federal government governs the relationship among the states and takes care of those things that serve the interest of all states, which those states cannot do by themselves (such as the "national defense").

First off, I am not defending the practice of slavery nor advocating it. My points are merely regarding federalism & interstate commerce.

state laws trumped by the federal government so that slavery could continue in other states.

As I said, interstate commerce is the realm of a federal government.

How could a state be a "free" state is [sic] slave owners could live in the states and keep their slaves because they had been purchased in another state.

I would agree with you on this point, if slavery was illegal in a state, these slave owners would be outlaws and should not have moved to this state.

I believe you are wrong, in almost all slavery cases, the federal government trumped state laws even when a state wanted to be a free state.

Wrong about what, exactly?

PS, what if Wisconsin did not want a slave trade and wanted to make blacks citizens, under your system, since Mississippi wanted a slave trade, then all states had to agree to abid by the terms of the slave trade.

Citizens of what, Mississippi? That would be fine. IMHO, in a federal system, we are NOT citizens of the country directly, but only indirectly through our citizenship in a state of the country. We are first and foremost citizens of the state in which we live. Should Mississippi have made African-Americans citizens, they would be citizens of Mississippi but not of other states that did not (wrongly, of course) recognize the same right to citizenship.

Interstate commerce laws apply between citizens or corporations recognized by the individual states, and thus would have to apply to African-American citizens of one state when they wished to engage in commerce with another state even if the other state did not recognize them as citizens.

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.