Posted on 12/20/2010 3:43:37 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
You seem to saying that some small inconvenience caused by traffic on I-90 isn't worth the tens of thousands of dollars that Biloxi Spring break brought to the city, even though as a city you were literally on your back economically five years ago from a hurricane and just last summer again from the oil spill. I guess every location has to have some folk who can't abide others enjoying themselves and having a good time. I'm willing to wager however, that you're a distinct minority.
As for the for the slave states that didn't secede, you are as aware as I am that those weren't the states that the South Carolina secessionists were complaining about.
You and I know both know the institution of slavery is intrinsically evil. So the northern states could not degrade themselves by declining to support it by returning escaped slaves. The southern states degraded themselves by demanding the return.
Or are you willing to argue that the southern states did not degrade themselves by the institution of slavery, that slavery is not intrinsically evil? If so, good luck with that.
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]”
It wasn’t “tens of thousands of dollars”, for a start. Many businesses have decided they’d rather take the small loss in profits rather have themselves or their families exposed to the kinds of outrageous spectacles to which the community was treated. I might point out that these “Black Beach Breaks” began in our area a couple of years before Katrina, also. It’s also more than “minor convenience”—our local police were more than happy to work with the promotors in order to reach a balance between ensuring a fun time for the partieirs and a sense of orderliness for the residemts. The promotoers were opposed to this, they framed it as allowing the police to know where they would likely be, makimg it more difficult to avoid police oversight fo r the good of all. They were just completely non-cooperative,
We jave Mrdi Gras along the stretch of the Coast every year and it’s never been anything like this. The routes are planned, contingincies are allowed for for people who have to be places, and there’s certainly no feel that a ghetto strip club has set up along with the accompanying loudly shouted vulgarities and crude acts. Furthermore, there is no fear of arresting a local white gwtting oit of line, as opposed to minority “children” who have and will use their favorite scare tactic-calling in the NAACP on the mean old white police. It is curious why young aduts would insist upon choosing this area to do not much more than turn 90 into a parking lot -there are better plaxes for that even, if that’s their idea of fun, and certainly better places to shop, party, etc. They’re mostly too young and too broke for the casinos, the casino boutiques are high-end. I know these kids aten’t rich, the rich ones go to Cancun. Even the rest pf the middle class prefers Florida or Galveston. Why, of all places, the Mississippi Gulf Coast, unless you are hoping for a confrontation with those mythical “rednecks”? Which never happens, we just all stay home if we’re not working, till the swarm leaves, the streets are free, and we can start helping clean up who ever’s yard got “honored” as the open-air bathroom. The biggest “confrontation” so far has been a group of the “young students” tearing the shirts off two girls as they attempted to leave the mall after shopping., even knowing they were being videod as they did it. No, none of this worth the measly bit of profit to most (after the stolen merchandise, beer walkouts, broken store glass, and gas drive-offs are deducted) just so we can have had the dubious “pleasure” of having hosted these uninvited guests who don’t treat oir home as if they are guests.
Oh and you’d lose your wager. A very few of the business owners claim to like it, but most don’t-one way or another they lose more than they make, either loss, from stolen merchandise or breakage/vandalism, loss from other customers staying away for the time being, loss from the hassle of their employees not being able to get through (or just plain not choosing to be subjected to the madness). We’re not even giving warning to prepare, we have to try to gather info about when the event will occur from different “Black Beach Week” forums on the internet. Now why wouldn’t people want the community they are about to come tie up in knots for app a week to know when they’re coming?
I merely pointed out you seem to be confusing the two documents. I don't see anyone trying to hide anything with editing.
They seceded to defend the states that seceded over slavery, so they they seceded to defend slavery as well. No first wave of secession, no second wave of secession.
Incorrect. They seceded due to Lincoln's call for troops. Please read Arkansas Declaration of Secession. They seceded b/c there is no Constitutional power given to any branch of government to use force in coercing another soveriegn state to remain in the Union. So, yes, there was a second wave. It really is all part of history.
Alexander Hamilton @ ratification debate in New York state in 1788. Emphasis and underline mine.
"It has been observed, to coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single state. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war?"
"Suppose Massachusetts, or any large state, should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assistance, especially from those states which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against the federal head."
"Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. But can we believe that one state will ever suffer itself to be used as an instrument of coercion? The thing is a dream; it is impossible."
Madison on use of force against a soveriegn state (emphasis mine):
“Mr. MADISON, observed that the more he reflected on the use of force [by the federal govt against the States], the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — A union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. 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. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con.” Link: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0531.htm
You and I know both know the institution of slavery is intrinsically evil. So the northern states could not degrade themselves by declining to support it by returning escaped slaves. The southern states degraded themselves by demanding the return.
I don't see anyone defending slavery. By not following the Constitution the North degraded themselves. Not to mention, their part in slavery. Nor the money flowing North from slave labor. Nor the cotton flowing North from slave labor. Oh, and have you figured out which state (at least one) in the North still had slaves prior to the war? Have you studied the "Black Codes" of the Northern states? Ever wondered why they didn't just buy the slaves and set them up in neighborhoods in the Northern states? Might have kept them from being degraded by those awful Southern slavers if they had just bought the poor souls and moved 'em to the North. Oh, that's right, the Northern states didn't want blacks there. Ever wonder why the Northern states didn't move the freed slaves up North after the war?
I think someone in an earlier post tried to tell you if you're looking for Little Bo Peep, don't look back. Our history isn't pretty. The whole meme that the South was bad, and the North was good is a fairy tale. It is one that should never have been propogated. True American history is available if you choose to look at it all.
Obviously they didn't. However, I must point out slavery would have been safe as an institution in the Union also due to the Corwin Amendment (aka the original 13th Amendment as proposed):
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
I fogot to mention that only four of the Confederate states issued Declarations of Causes. The other seven only issued Ordinances of Secession. Thought this might help in your research.
I also forgot to mention the Northern states that started repealing their Personal Liberty laws (which were in direct conflict w/the Constitution) as soon as the Southern states started seceding. It was too late by that point. Now why would they all of a sudden decide to repeal those laws if the laws whole purpose was to keep those states from degrading themselves? Why did Lincoln say, more than once, that the war wasn’t to free the slaves? Why did Congress not say in it’s joint resolution that it was to free the slaves?
I’m not trying to be argumentative, mean, spiteful, or anything else. I’m simply giving you historical facts.
...and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;...
Gee that's news to me, maybe you should get the opinion of my wife and kids. You're the one calling people gay, not me. Look in the mirror if you want to know a homophobic.
We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the House of Commons, in England, and that many of the members raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the whole of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue oppression on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one tenth of the people to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.
Yes...you are correct..Jeff Davis was President of a country.
The first governor of Virgina was a good man. I am ashamed of what has happened to our coutry and state.
The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them.~Patrick Henry
Indeed, and amen. There is a reason why Patrick Henry is among my favorite Founding Fathers.
And still, no “Union-minded” BIG Government ‘conservative’ can answer my explanation and differentiation between themselves and the Small Government Conservatives who favor States Rights, the Constitution, and reserve the rights of nullification and even secession under the Tenth Amendment to preserve liberty.
That’s because they LOST the intellectual argument 150 years ago, so they just conquered the “enemy” and destroyed the Constitution — and TODAY we are witnessing the results in Washington, D.C. And they STILL can’t win the intellectual argument — so they will again resort to (first, personal insults, then to) violence to maintain central, tyrannical power. It’s the way they roll.
Wait... there's more! Here is what Mr. NICHOLAS said during Virginia's Ratification Convention:
Mr. NICHOLAS contended that the language of the proposed ratification would secure every thing which gentlemen desired, as it declared that all powers vested in the {626} Constitution were derived from the people, and might be resumed by them whensoever they should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remained at their will. No danger whatever could arise; for, says he, these expressions will become a part of the contract. The Constitution cannot be binding on Virginia, but with these conditions. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted, — I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
Here is James Madison.. with his observations during Virginia's Ratification Convention:
That resolution declares that the powers granted by the proposed Constitution are the gift of the people, and may be resumed by them when perverted to their oppression, and every power not granted thereby remains with the people, and at their will. It adds, likewise, that no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the general government, or any of its officers, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for these purposes.
VIRGINIA, to wit:
We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:
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.