Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul is wrong on the Civil War and slavery, and he should be ashamed
Grand Old Partisan ^ | August 5, 2010 | Chuck Devore

Posted on 08/05/2010 6:01:30 AM PDT by Michael Zak

[by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine, CA), re-published with his permission]

For years I have admired Congressman Ron Paul’s principled stance on spending and the Constitution. That said, he really damaged himself when he blamed President Lincoln for the Civil War, saying, “Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war… [President Abraham Lincoln] did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.”

This is historical revisionism of the worst order, and it must be addressed.

For Congressman Paul’s benefit – and for his supporters who may not know – seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States before Lincoln was sworn in as President. After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence...

(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; apaulogia; apaulogists; chuckdevore; civilwar; dixie; federalreserve; fff; greatestpresident; ronpaul; ronpaulisright; secession; traitorworship
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-861 next last
To: central_va
"Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our country racist past North and South."

So then because it was legal that made it okay to infringe on people's liberties? According to your logic then when the Federal government wanted to make a law that the new states and territories coming into the union not be slave states that was okay. After all, that was the reason the Southern states went into rebellion is because they wanted to extend slaves to the new territories. The law to abolish slavery in the South was not made until 1863 when the Southern states were already in rebellion.
101 posted on 08/05/2010 7:47:42 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

>>”I’m sorry but it’s a ‘semi-foggy’ recollection and I cannot remember the reference or the author.”
>
>Well, if you can find me something to read about it. I surely would like to. I’m not just saying that. I try to be after the truth, not just here to win an argument

To tide you over try this legal conundrum I’ve found:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2560780/posts?page=93#93


102 posted on 08/05/2010 7:51:48 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Secession and Liberty

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/secession-and-liberty-by-thomas-j-dilorenzo-2/


103 posted on 08/05/2010 7:54:50 AM PDT by gunnyg (WE ARE BEHIND "ENEMY WITHIN" LINES, SURROUNDED, Our 'Novembers' Are Behind Us...If Ya Can "grok" it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Your claim was that no state would have joined the union if it thought it could not later secede; a third of the states joined with the explicit understanding that secession would be all but impossible, which tends to undercut that argument.

“No state would have ever” is somewhat hard to reconcile with the fact that seventeen states did.


104 posted on 08/05/2010 7:55:21 AM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

The organising principle of Southern society was the natural superiority of the white race over the black race. Nothing was going to interfere with that. If slavery was either outlawed or phased out that meant at the least the former slaves could start to outvote the white populace and who knows where that may have lead. At the most it would mean that whites and black were morally equal. Both outcomes were completely unacceptable to the white populace whether slave owner or not.


105 posted on 08/05/2010 7:56:35 AM PDT by AceMineral (Clam down!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Had armed citizens in SC not attacked Federal property who knows what might have been worked out, ie exchanging Federal property for cash or renouncing claims on western territories or maybe some conitued relationship. But once Fort Sumpter was attacked, then it was war.


106 posted on 08/05/2010 7:58:03 AM PDT by JLS (Democrats: People who won't even let you enjoy an unseasonably warm winter day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: central_va

There is no “attitude” involved simply knowledge of our constitution’s origin and the beliefs of its chief proponents and writers. That is something you prefer to subordinate to ideology and false history.

BTW the CSA “government” was just as “statist” as Lincoln’s.


107 posted on 08/05/2010 7:58:10 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Lets get one thing straight. Slavery is abhorrent. Indeed I believe there's a good legal argument that Amendment V to the Constitution prohibits it.viz " ..nor shall any person be ....deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law..." Were slaves deprived of their liberty? Yes. Was it done by due process of law? No. The fundamental question was can a person be considered property and my answer is no because, if one can, anyone can. While I believe the Southern States were legally correct, morally they were wrong.

What I'm anxious to establish is the right to seccede because a Federal government which requires you to buy health insurance is most certainly acting "Ultra Vires" the powers granted to it by the states under the Constitution.

108 posted on 08/05/2010 8:01:14 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
There is no “attitude” involved simply knowledge of our constitution’s origin and the beliefs of its chief proponents and writers. That is something you prefer to subordinate to ideology and false history. BTW the CSA “government” was just as “statist” as Lincoln’s.

Your posts might benefit from "because I said so" at the end, as there is no way to validate your opinions with fact.

109 posted on 08/05/2010 8:02:08 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: AceMineral
The organising principle of Southern society was the natural superiority of the white race over the black race.

Slavery was immoral true but slavery was legal in ALL states North and South in the 18th, early 19th century. Racism didn't end above the Mason-Dixon, Lincoln himself was a racist to the nth degree. That is fact.

110 posted on 08/05/2010 8:06:14 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: nailspitter

Your comment about NY’s ratification is utterly false. Madison’s letter to Hamilton on the question of conditional ratification put an end to that issue there. H was actually considering letting a conditional ratification go through until that letter declaring once in the union always in the Union. It was then voted down.

Virginia’s legislature had NOTHING to say on ratification. The process was deliberately and explicitly removed from the hands of the legislatures by Congress. The only question was Approved? or Disproved? by a convention not the legislature. Virginia’s legislature could have declared the sky was Pink and appended that to the vote of approval with equal validity and relevance.

It was in NO way “...ratified with that understanding.” The only understanding was that a BoRs would be added by amendment.

NE’s proposed secession was just as illegal as the South’s even though NE had far more valid reasons for it.


111 posted on 08/05/2010 8:07:41 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Bookmark


112 posted on 08/05/2010 8:12:24 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: beckysueb

It is certainly an open question whether Obamacare is constitutional and hopefully those opposed will come up with a GOOD case to take to court. A bad case would be a disaster.

Arizona’s law is not in CONFLICT with federal law but actually suppliments it so the “Supremacy Clause” does not appear to truly apply contrary to de jedge’s allegation.

But the constitutionality of secession is not in question and never was if the greatest of our founders thoughts are considered.


113 posted on 08/05/2010 8:14:24 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
Shame they couldn’t have settled on a price to continue the Slave export program which Abe favored over conflict.

You do know that the "slave export program" that Lincoln proposed was inspired by his mentor Thomas Jefferson? Only unlike Jefferson, his plan was entirely voluntary?

Otherwise yes, it would have been a preferable resolution.

114 posted on 08/05/2010 8:16:36 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

...Hasdrubal, who was younger than Hannibal but older than Mago, died valiantly in battle against the Romans as he tried to bring a second invasion army to Italy to support Hannibal.

The Romans cut off his head. Then they marched it to the other end of Italy and catapulted it into Hannibal’s camp. Hannibal, who still did not even know that Hasdrubal had arrived in Italy, last saw his brother’s face …. as it rolled toward him.

Did you mean this bro?


115 posted on 08/05/2010 8:17:52 AM PDT by Gemsbok (Dead men tell no tales!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
The victor writes the history books.

There is definitely a Northern version and a Southern version of the Civil War, or as we in the South like to call it, The War of Northern Aggression. Mr. DeVore obviously buys into the Northern version.

He leaves out the Federal governments imposing tariffs on machinery imported from Europe to protect the Northern manufacturers but to the detriment of the agrarian South. The South traded cotton to Europe and bought machinery there. The Northern manufacturers wanted that deal, to buy cotton for making garments and to sell machinery to the South in return. So they imposed a tariff on machinery imported from Europe. Many consider that the true trigger for the war.

He ignores that the slavery issue was more a power struggle between politicians than a burning issue among the people. There were few slave holders and there were almost as many slaveholders in the North as in the South. Thus, the Missouri Compromise. That was all politics with slavery as the front issue, much like Global Warming is today. Harriet Beecher Stowe had just written Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Battle Hymn of the Republic to add fuel to the fire, very similar to Rachel Carson's Silent Spring which furthered the cause of the Left and banned DDT.

The plantation owners were beginning to learn that slavery was not a winning economic proposition with the upkeep and the original costs involved. Slaves sold for around $2,000 dollars each depending on age, health, gender, and the needs of the buyer. How much is that in today's dollars? A bunch! Add to that feeding them, clothing them, and taking care of their health. A certain number of slaves had to be diverted from the money crops just to grow food, make clothes, build houses, etc. Slavery was an expensive proposition.

The most labor intensive part of cotton farming was separating the seeds from the fiber. It was slow and it took lots of folks working on it. The invention of the cotton gin, by Eli Whitney, meant that one person could now do the work of many, further eroding the economics of slavery.

The colonization of this continent began in the early 1500's. Slavery began in Africa, made its way to England and from there to this continent. That was almost 300 years before there was a United States of America. The Civil War came 60 years after that. To me, that is all further evidence that slavery was a political issue manipulated by politicians rather than a citizens movement. Slavery was also a well established fact of life in the world, not some evil scheme by Southerners to subjugate the Negros.

DeVore also ignores that most of those Southern states only joined the union with the proviso that if it did not accrue to their benefit they could withdraw from the deal. Lincoln conveniently ignored that. Lincoln was a politician doing things for political purposes, not the saint that history has made him out to be.

That is my thumbnail view of the situation and you are right, the victors write the history.

116 posted on 08/05/2010 8:18:03 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

The comments in the article are really a reflection of the poor quality of our current education system. The author makes the mistake of trying to understand historical events through modern lenses, instead of understanding them through the lenses of the time.

The “right of succession” was a hotly debated topic right from the intial enactment of the Constitution all the way through the Civil War, and it was not split along north/south lines.

Several New England states came within a hair of succeeding over the War of 1812.

Andrew Jackson (a southener & president from 1829-1837) believed the union could never be broken, and was very vocal about it. The fact that the quote on Jackson’s statue in New Orleans is: “The union must and shall be preserved.” shows how ardent Jackson was on this issue.

President Buchanan (A Pensylvanian, and Lincoln’s predecesor) believed the federal government didn’t have the constitutional authority to use military force to prevent a state from leaving the union (another topic that had been hotly debated for decades prior to the Civil War.)

Succession may have been settled by the Civil War, but it was anything but settled prior to that. For decades prior to that honest, intelligent people from every part of the country fell on both sides of the issue.

For someone today to make a blanket comment that succession in 1860 was universally viewed as an illegal activity in 1860 is to show a stunning lack of understanding of American history. Lord help us if this is the quality of education our schools are providing today.


117 posted on 08/05/2010 8:18:32 AM PDT by Brookhaven (The next step for the Tea Party--The Conservative Hand--is available at Amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Lincoln had little to do with the initiation of the war. Slavers were so determined to keep slavery that they started long BEFORE Lincoln was even elected to effect secession. Buchanan’s cabinet was filled with men who transferred arms to Southern depots and dispersed troops to keep them from easy use against the South.

A Federal fort was attacked. A fort that was CLEARLY US property.

The South was better prepared for war than the Union was and had been long working just for that end.


118 posted on 08/05/2010 8:18:55 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gemsbok
That was the one. A footnote in history, while his brother had a character played by Anthony Hopkins that was his namesake.

All the Barca brothers swore the same oath to their father. To never be “a friend to Rome”.

Never be a friend to Rome = Never surrender.

When you surrendered Rome made you promise to henceforth ‘be a friend to Rome’.

119 posted on 08/05/2010 8:20:49 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
I agree that the Confederate states had the right to secede and form a separate nation.

That having been done, I would have no problem with the North (either as government policy or via citizens' groups acting privately) encouraging "regime change" by the slaves against their masters just as we should be encouraging regime change in Iraq.

120 posted on 08/05/2010 8:20:49 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (I've been ionized, but I'm okay now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob

I think we pick and choose what we are “allowed” by the federal government to do and what we are not allowed to do. Sorry. I don’t see any difference. Of course its for the betterment of the nation to forbid the southern states to secede. The southern states through their conservative voting somewhat keeps the feds in check. The sparsely populated western states (Bless them) couldn’t do it on their own. In 2008, the usually conservative states deviated somewhat and voila! We got Obama.


121 posted on 08/05/2010 8:23:00 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"To tide you over try this legal conundrum I’ve found:"

It's an interesting connundrum that is being played out all over the United States right now. I think Walter Williams said it best. I heard him say that you can always violate the law and stand up for your individual rights. However be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Something like that.

Anyways, the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in a lot of state and federal constitutions and is a widely recognized natural right. The power of one state to secede from the United States I don't find anywhere as a right or power.
122 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:13 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

Lincoln had little to do with the initiation of the war. Slavers were so determined to keep slavery that they started long BEFORE Lincoln was even elected to effect secession. Buchanan’s cabinet was filled with men who transferred arms to Southern depots and dispersed troops to keep them from easy use against the South.

A Federal fort was attacked. A fort that was CLEARLY US property.

The South was better prepared for war than the Union was and had been long working just for that end.

Slavery was not as concentrated area-wise in other countries
and did not have pre-existing political institutions (separate semi-sovereign states) to aid a rebellion so it was easier to change without war. Nor was there as much economic power in the hands of domestic slavers. In other European countries the majority of slaves were outside the countries. Lincoln had nothing to do with the situation he inherited or his enemies’ reactions.


123 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:28 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"Your posts might benefit from "because I said so" at the end, as there is no way to validate your opinions with fact."

Hey cva, I see you're doing a little Liberal Projection already this morning!

124 posted on 08/05/2010 8:24:37 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

I’d say you are more correct than the south-north kneejerk reactions.


125 posted on 08/05/2010 8:28:35 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

Virtually every word of your post indicates that you do NOT know how the Constitution was created nor what it actually means.

Legislatures were DELIBERATELY kept out of the ratification process because the intent was to keep them from using the argument you use. A constitution is not an ordinary law which can be changed by legislative action. The founders made sure that was the case.

State legislatures in NO way approved entry into the Union. Their ONLY role was to establish CONVENTIONS within the states to decide the issue.

The “feds” sparked nothing. Lincoln had to defend US institutions and property ATTACKED by the slavers.


126 posted on 08/05/2010 8:29:43 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DwFry

Nothing is contradicted. Self-rule is upheld by providing for the means of changing the constitution through amendment.
It cannot be changed by less than a majority of the states. It cannot be changed by armed rebellion against the legitimate government.


127 posted on 08/05/2010 8:34:06 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

States never were “promised” any such thing. That is simply a falsehood.


128 posted on 08/05/2010 8:35:25 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
"What I'm anxious to establish is the right to seccede because a Federal government which requires you to buy health insurance is most certainly acting "Ultra Vires" the powers granted to it by the states under the Constitution."

I don't get the connection between some supposed power to secede and the current health care debate. As noted in post 78, the writer of the Constitution didn't think a state had any power to secede. He and Jefferson also proved that by their actions vis a vis in regards to the New England states during their presidencies. Jefferson and the founders believed you had the moral authority to rebell against a government if it became abusive and controlling. The Federal government under Lincoln wanted to not extend slavery to the new states and territories. They never tried to abolish slavery in the Southern states until after they were in rebellion. How is a government being abusive to it's citizens by not extending slavery to any new states or territories that join the union?

You are trying to claim that the states retained some sort of power to opt out of the United States. It's not backed up by history. They can rebell, but not just decide to opt out. However, history does back up the fact that the United States government has never forced it's citizens to buy a product or service.
129 posted on 08/05/2010 8:35:30 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak; drangundsturm
Lincoln wanted to save the Union at all costs. In the letter response to Horace Greeley, Lincoln stated that he did not agree with those who would not save the Union unless they could save slavery at the same time. His stated object was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that." Whether Lincoln hurt or helped the slaves, it was all for the sake and well-being of the Union. "The sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.'"

Supreme power (of the federal government) was intentionally not made part of the Constitution because it would have never been ratified otherwise.
Slavery was not specifically cited in the Constitution for similar reason.
"Slavery in the territories" had been a federal power since the Northwest Ordinance which predated the Constitution. The issue was how, and therefore which, territories.
Taxation and allocation of the income from taxes were provided for in the Constitution and the south believed that both taxes and trade tariffs were being applied unfairly and to the detriment of agricultural (slave) states.

When South Carolina left the union, leaving a federal fort blocking Charleston harbor to be resolved, they hoped for the arrival of troop ships to remove that federal presence.
Instead, they got resupply ships enabling the union to retrench and remain.
SC considered that resupply as a use of force and intention to remain by threat of force and if force is legitimate to stop secession, then force is equally legitimate to bring secession about.
When they fired on one of those ships, and Sumter, they had no thought of treason because they held the union to have been dissolved by the act of secession.

The right to secede was then a 50/50 proposition and deciding that issue was the true cause for the unlimited extent and carnage of that war.
"Treason" became an accepted stigma as a means of sustaining adequate support for the war in the north.

It can readily be argued that northern abolitionists "caused" the war by limiting any president's ability to negotiate or conciliate, by encouraging revolt within the South, and by inflaming Northern emotions.

Since talk of secession is once again making the news here in the US, some here might want to reconsider their hard line beliefs regarding the war between North and South.

As to the question in #9:
I doubt such a deal was possible in 1861 but, given Sherman, Reconstruction, and the fact that this side of East Texas there was little geography that would be hospitable to a slave economy, I'd certainly rather they could have pulled it off by peaceful means a decade or so later.

Finally, Ron Paul and Chuck DeVore are both idiots.

130 posted on 08/05/2010 8:40:34 AM PDT by norton (my quarterly response rant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Nice try but it does not provide cover for secession.
Without the discussion of WHY voters voted the way they did the excerpt is useless. You Defenders of the Indefensible are always trying to pull stunts like that to “prove” your point. Almost always when your quotes are analyzed in content they wind up proving the opposite to what you want.

Then the next thread even after being shown to be inappropriate the same quote will be used as though the prior discussion never took place.


131 posted on 08/05/2010 8:40:41 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

Glad you mentioned divorce.

Divorce is NOT one party walking away and saying s/he is no longer married. At least in non-moslem countries.

Divorce is a LEGAL process accomplished through the courts.

Amendment of the constitution is ALSO a legal process.


132 posted on 08/05/2010 8:43:25 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: norton
"Since talk of secession is once again making the news here in the US, some here might want to reconsider their hard line beliefs regarding the war between North and South."

Rebellion and secession are two different terms. I see more talk of rebellion than secession.
133 posted on 08/05/2010 8:44:41 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

The American People never signed on to the British Empire.

They, on the other hand, CREATED the Union along with the means of changing it should it become unsatisfactory.


134 posted on 08/05/2010 8:45:17 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

I see some of both, and mostly from hot-heads hoping to agitate others to actually do the “heavy lifting”. Pity since it detracts from the serious business at hand.


135 posted on 08/05/2010 8:47:01 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Interestingly, if you look at the Constitution, nowhere does it say what the name of the country is. The country was named “The United States of America” in the Articles of Confederation, so obviously part of the Articles of Confederation survives to this day. An undeniable fact.

Prior to the 10th Amendment, prior even to the Constitution, the perpetual union already existed, the states already had agreed to surrender any right to secede. If the 10th Amendment was intended to abolish the perpetuity of the union, the 10th amendment would have said so specifically. The founders were certainly very specific about Perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation, and the founders were not big on “emanations from the penumbra”.

I also refer you to MNJohnnie’s post #78 above, where Madison trashes secessionism.

136 posted on 08/05/2010 8:47:31 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: You want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Fort was clearly US property ceded by the State to the National government decades before.

If you want to declare war start shooting at federal property.


137 posted on 08/05/2010 8:49:26 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
The Southern states could have called a constitutional convention, they could have tried to do so politically.

They did not have to. Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.

138 posted on 08/05/2010 8:50:15 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ought-six

It is precluded by the nature of the term “constitution” which was the FOUNDATION of the Union and could only be changed by the amendment process.


139 posted on 08/05/2010 8:51:48 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our country racist past North and South.

FYI - thousands of blacks in this country were slave owners. Some were slave breeders, selling their own offspring into slavery.

Slavery was about money and selfishness, not racism.

140 posted on 08/05/2010 8:54:31 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

States discussed secession as early as 1803. One of the reasons Hamilton was killed was because he made sure Burr was defeated as Gov. of NY. Burr was playing footise with the NE secessionists and Hamilton abhorred the idea of destroying the Union. H was actually offered command of the military of the proposed new nation but made sure it never was created.

Of course, we know the opinion that Jackson had about secessionists as he threatened to personally hang anyone attempting it from S. Carolina’s highest tree.


141 posted on 08/05/2010 8:56:36 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

>It’s an interesting connundrum that is being played out all over the United States right now. I think Walter Williams said it best. I heard him say that you can always violate the law and stand up for your individual rights. However be prepared for the consequences of your actions. Something like that.

>Anyways, the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in a lot of state and federal constitutions and is a widely recognized natural right. The power of one state to secede from the United States I don’t find anywhere as a right or power.

Actually it’s a specific instance of a general principal which is integral to the argument of the validity of secession: either the Constitution [federal and/or State] are legally binding to that government or they are not. If they are not, then using them as references or [legal] defense is worthless. {IOW, you cannot use them as the basis/foundation for any sort of reasoning.} But if they *are* legally binding then they are necessarily superior to the laws passed by that [level of] government as they are the basis and authority for the formation of the respective legislature; in which case such Constitutions have every right to exclude from the legislature any particular aspect (such as the right to keep and bear arms by forbidding abridgment of that right via law).

By using the Constitution as a point of reference for authority you are implicitly rejecting that it is a “feel good document” or a “living, breathing [ever-changing] document” (which can, without warning, mean something completely different than it did five minutes/days/years/decades ago). It is extraordinarily important that you and I and every other Citizen know a) which the Constitution is and b) which the *government* says the Constitution is.

As a small example, I’ll refer back to my State Constitution; in its bill of rights there is the following section:
Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and no person shall ever be molested or denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of his religious opinion or mode of religious worship. No person shall be required to attend any place of worship or support any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.

If my state government *can* [legitimately] “abridge the right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms” (contrary to its constitution) like in the referenced prohibition at universities OR [say] at courthouses then there is no guarantee that the above cited section cannot also be violated. The State could prohibit Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, and/or Buddhists [etc] from voting [or handing out literature “of a political nature”].

It is the same with the Federal System; though pointing it out may label you as a “crazy.”


142 posted on 08/05/2010 8:57:21 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate; Old Teufel Hunden

Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them.

Except that unilateral secession wasn’t a right they had to assert.


143 posted on 08/05/2010 8:57:59 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
"They did not have to. Just as no convention is necessary to grant rights, no convention is necessary to assert them."

Individuals have rights given by their creator. Governments have powers delegated to them by the people (at least thats the way ours works). The Southern States had no power of secession ever. The founders did not believe so and when they came into the union they were not given this "opt out" clause. Clearly people have the right of secession. It's called moving to a different state or country.
144 posted on 08/05/2010 8:58:54 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
So you are saying that this "power" of secession was something that the founders reserved to the states when they had never thought this "power" up to begin with.

And this is where your understanding of what the constitution is, is flawed. Hamilton wrote, in regards to the Bill of Rights [which he REJECTED!], that such a BoR was dangerous as it would IMPLY powers not granted specifically - IOW, the Government was given specific limited powers - nowhere is a power listed that confers a power upon the federal government to COMPELL a member state to remain in the Union - thus it did not have the power to do so (legally). That the founders "never thought" about sucession can not be proved - what CAN be proved is that they did NOT forbid it in the constitution!

145 posted on 08/05/2010 8:58:58 AM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (Here's my strategy on the War against Terrorism: We win, they lose. - with apologies to R.R.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane

Bingo! WE have a winner!


146 posted on 08/05/2010 9:00:54 AM PDT by Lee'sGhost (Johnny Rico picked the wrong girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Read post 78 from the writer of the constitution. See what he thought about this “power” of secession...


147 posted on 08/05/2010 9:02:16 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
"CAN be proved is that they did NOT forbid it in the constitution!"

Read post 78 from the writer of that constitution.
148 posted on 08/05/2010 9:04:29 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Hasdrubal.


149 posted on 08/05/2010 9:04:38 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: runninglips
Government does not give rights, they are inherent within man and his relationships and come from God. Your premise is flawed.

I think that is the crux of the matter. We are discussing which rights the people gave to the government, not vice versa. We know the founders and constructors of the Constitution took great care to limit the power of the central government. That was specifically the purpose of the 10th Amendment, to protect the states and the people from a powerful central government. The previous nine were to protect the individual against the government.

In that context, in makes no sense that the states would bind themselves irreconcilably to that government. Plus some of the states had a pre-nup.

150 posted on 08/05/2010 9:05:38 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-861 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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