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: Cheburashka

...so you’re citing a clause in the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution superseded and replaced in order to justify qualifying the latter’s concept of ‘union’ as perpetual?

That is highly dubious reasoning.


51 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:29 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 31 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

On Manipulated History...

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/tom-dilorenzo-on-abraham%C2%A0lincoln-us%C2%A0authoritarianism-and-manipulated%C2%A0history-by-scott-smith/


52 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:39 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: ought-six
The Articles of Confederation were determind to be unworkable, and were replaced by the Constitution, which became the supreme law of the land. As far as I know, the Constitution does not anywhere use the term “Perpetual Union”.

The Constitution did not abolish the Articles of Confederation, it amended and improved the political arrangements. The Preamble starts off: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...” Not a less perfect Union. There's not a word about abolishing the the perpetuity of the Union anywhere in the Constitution.
53 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:39 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Another great rock and roll band name: The Radioactive Wild Boars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: central_va

At the time Virginia and New York ratified the Constitution (the two largest and most influential states) they declared that they did so with the understanding they could secede. This was acceptable to the remaining states, and the Constitution was ratified with that understanding. The Tenth Amendment was inserted into the Bill of Rights to make future secession unnecessary. Furthermore, if secession was illegal, why did New England seriously consider it in the War of 1812, and why did the Mass. Assembly pass an article of secession at the time Texas’ admission to the union? Why was a textbook in use at West Point’s government class that taught that secession was legal?

After the Civil War, there was talk of a trial for Jefferson Davis for treason. The Chief Justice of the Supreme court advised against a treason trial for Davis because, since secession was legal, in his opinion, Davis would be acquitted and the South would win in court what it had just lost on the battlefield.Secession was only declared illegal by the Supreme Court about 1867.

Talk about historical revisionism. Jeez!! This is not to say that the South should have seceeded or that it would have been a good thing had they been successful. But secession was most definitely not illegal.


54 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:53 AM PDT by nailspitter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

Here we go again.


55 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:58 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
"And just what were those hostilities?"

It's in the aritcle...

"President Buchanan had attempted to resupply Fort Sumter by sea, but the Confederates fired upon the ship, the Star of the West, and drove it away."


56 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:59 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
That is because =

Ron Paul is a NUT!

57 posted on 08/05/2010 6:56:59 AM PDT by Jmouse007 (Heavenly Father, deliver us from evil and from those perpetuating it, in Jesus name, amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

The “Articles of Confederation” were found to be flawed and were discarded with the institution of the Constitution.


58 posted on 08/05/2010 6:58:48 AM PDT by runninglips (Don't support the Republican party, work to "fundamentally change" it...conservative would be nice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
"Actually your question is backwards - where was the federal government given the right to force a state to remain?"

No it's not. The Southern states could have called a constitutional convention, they could have tried to do so politically. They chose to do it through force (in the article) which is armed rebellion. The rebellion was put down.
59 posted on 08/05/2010 6:59:04 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
The united States was created as an agent for certain limited purposes which were delegated to it by the several states. It was to be the agent of the states mainly for national defence. Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until two years after the convention. During those two years did the Federal Government have any say in matters concerning Rhode Island ? If not then it was an independent state and only joined, delegating the LIMITED purposes set out in Article 1. Section 8 to the united States.

Here's what Jefferson thought on the subject:

....the rights retained by the States, rights which they never have yielded, and which (Virginia) will never voluntairily yield they do not mean to raise the banner of dissaffection , or of seperation from their sister states, co-parties with themselves to this compact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their union as to foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction to be met by actual reistance; they respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the same rights under the same instrument, to make every different construction for immediate rupture. They would indeed consider such a rupture as among the greatest calamities which could befall them; but not the greatest. There is yet one greater, submission to a government of unlimited powers.

See Justice Scalias question to the idiot Solicitor General of the the United States in 1996.

60 posted on 08/05/2010 6:59:13 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunnyg

Conspiracy In phila...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7396435/Conspiracy-in-Philadelphia-Origins-of-the-US-Constitution-by-Dr-Gary-North


61 posted on 08/05/2010 6:59:33 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 52 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
That Senate journal you put forward is dated 1861. Right in the middle of the secession crisis. Can you show me where the founders thought that states had the power to secede?

I have an idea, why don't you research your own hypotheses as your supposition is not that interesting?

62 posted on 08/05/2010 6:59:57 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
"Any power not granted to the federal government WAS NOT GRANTED!"

Again, can you show me where the founders thought that secession was a power that the states had and retained independent of the federal government. They never talked about secession to my knowledge. 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. They allowed that you could rebell through the Declaration of Indepedence. The Southern states tried that and lost. Get over it.
63 posted on 08/05/2010 7:02:02 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

Actually there is one good paper written on it [secession] by the founders, a federalist paper IIRC, it stated that the compact of the Constitution, having been freely entered into [as a contract would be], was [like a contract] not binding if the other party didn’t “hold up their end of the deal,” and could be voluntarily left.

I’m sorry but it’s a ‘semi-foggy’ recollection and I cannot remember the reference or the author.


64 posted on 08/05/2010 7:03:44 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 32 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
Ron Paul =
65 posted on 08/05/2010 7:05:59 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Remember in November. Clean the house on Nov. 2. / Progressive is a PC word for liberal democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

After South Carolina fired the first shot at Fort Sumter, four additional states declared independence.
Knights of the golden circle??.


66 posted on 08/05/2010 7:07:33 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"I have an idea, why don't you research your own hypotheses as your supposition is not that interesting?"

I don't need to research it. I know the answer to my question and you probably do also. The founding fathers never considered that states had this "power" to secede from the new union. They never wrote about it that I'm aware of. The reason you find it not that interesting is that it doesn't support your argument. One thing the founders did write about was their yearning for liberty of people and how many of them loathed the institution of slavery. Many of them were acutely aware of how hypocritical they were providing for the liberty of the white man, but not the black man. That is why they put things in the constitution to start the abolishment of slavery.
67 posted on 08/05/2010 7:08:37 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

See my post at 60.


68 posted on 08/05/2010 7:08:54 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

69 posted on 08/05/2010 7:08:54 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
"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.
70 posted on 08/05/2010 7:10:11 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

>There’s not a word about abolishing the the perpetuity of the Union anywhere in the Constitution.

There’s not a word about *keeping* it either. The “more perfect union” may or may not have been referring to the aforementioned ‘perpetual union’ OR it may have been indicating a *new* union.


71 posted on 08/05/2010 7:10:31 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 53 | View Replies]

To: All

This whole arguement reminds me of whether or not any states have the right to refuse Obamacare or the right to protect its own borders.


72 posted on 08/05/2010 7:10:47 AM PDT by beckysueb (January 20, 2013. When Obama becomes just a skidmark on the panties of American history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak

If you think RP is an idiot just consider who sends him to Congress year after year.

If his medical advice is as good as his political understanding there must be a bunch of dead folks walking around his district.


73 posted on 08/05/2010 7:12:51 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Yep, that’s Ron.


74 posted on 08/05/2010 7:13:54 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Remember in November. Clean the house on Nov. 2. / Progressive is a PC word for liberal democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat

Per the Constitution, rights are something accorded an individual that comes from God. Powers are something that individuals delegate to governments to perform on their behalf. Secession would not be a right, but a power so how exactly would Jefferson here be talking about secession?

I guess we all have a right to secede at any time by simply moving to another country.


75 posted on 08/05/2010 7:14:33 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive; central_va

No secession doesn’t fall under ANY amendment and is NOT legal there is no right to secede. Just check what Washington, Madison and Hamilton said about it. Or any of the major founders.

The constitution was written to create a “more perfect Union” and since even the Confederation declared the Confederation to be “perpetual” there is no LEGAL way out but through a constitutional amendment.


76 posted on 08/05/2010 7:16:34 AM PDT by arrogantsob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Start here.

Noted Anti-Federalists

    * Patrick Henry
    * Samuel Adams
    * George Mason
    * Richard Henry Lee
    * Robert Yates (politician)
    * James Winthrop
    * James Monroe
    * Mercy Otis Warren
    * George Clinton

77 posted on 08/05/2010 7:17:56 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark; Old Teufel Hunden; Timocrat; central_va; An.American.Expatriate; rockrr; ...
Well James Madison, one of the men most intimately involved in crafting the US Constitution, would say this argument that the Constitution allows for secession is total nonsense.

http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/james-madison-on-secession/

Montpellier, Decr 23, 1832.

Dr. Sir I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. It was in fact required by the course of reasoning employed on the occasion. The Kentucky resolutions being less guarded have been more easily perverted. The pretext for the liberty taken with those of Virginia is the word respective, prefixed to the “rights” &c to be secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expression have been foreseen or suspected, the form of it would doubtless have been varied. But what can be more consistent with common sense, than that all having the same rights &c, should unite in contending for the security of them to each.

It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.

I know nothing of what is passing at Richmond, more than what is seen in the newspapers. You were right in your foresight of the effect of the passages in the late Proclamation. They have proved a leaven for much fermentation there, and created an alarm against the danger of consolidation, balancing that of disunion. I wish with you the Legislature may not seriously injure itself by assuming the high character of mediator. They will certainly do so if they forget that their real influence will be in the inverse ratio of a boastful interposition of it.

If you can fix, and will name the day of your arrival at Orange Court House, we will have a horse there for you; and if you have more baggage than can be otherwise brought than on wheels, we will send such a vehicle for it. Such is the state of the roads produced by the wagons hurrying flour to market, that it may be impossible to send our carriage which would answer both purposes.

78 posted on 08/05/2010 7:19:56 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (The problem with Socialism is eventually you run our of other peoples money. Lady Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: drangundsturm

There was hope of a compromise being reached until the Feds called for Virginia to raise three regiments to invade the seceded states. Before this, though his own words and those of his advisers helped lead to the firing on Fort Sumter, there was hope that Virginia and others would not secede. The original group of states would have been isolated by seceding over slavery. I think they would have eventually have been mollified.

Once they pushed Virginia over the edge and out of the fold, the bloody Civil War was truly on.


79 posted on 08/05/2010 7:21:21 AM PDT by Ingtar (If he could have taxed it, Obama's hole would have been plugged by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
...so you’re citing a clause in the Articles of Confederation which the Constitution superseded and replaced in order to justify qualifying the latter’s concept of ‘union’ as perpetual?

That is highly dubious reasoning.


The Philadelphia Convention met to draft amendments to the Articles, and they drafted one big amendment.

The Constitution did not supersede the Articles - it amended them. Yes it completely gutted the political arrangements of the Articles, which were working so poorly. No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn't have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.

80 posted on 08/05/2010 7:21:21 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Another great rock and roll band name: The Radioactive Wild Boars.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Russ
... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Maybe the outcome will be different the next time...

Looks like we may have that opportunity. Of the people, by the people, for the people is once again perishing.

81 posted on 08/05/2010 7:21:28 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 6 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
And conducts the trials of the vanquished.

International law has but one precept.

The strong do what they will. The weak suffer what they must.

82 posted on 08/05/2010 7:22:01 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arrogantsob
No secession doesn’t fall under ANY amendment and is NOT legal there is no right to secede.

It's this attitude that ensures there will be a CWII, that maybe a good thing, better to fight on two feet than kneel to statism. Keep it up, please. Your screen name is perfect.

83 posted on 08/05/2010 7:22:10 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
"Well James Madison, one of the men most intimately involved in crafting the US Constitution, would say this argument that the Constitution allows for secession is total nonsense."

Thank you for your research.
84 posted on 08/05/2010 7:27:02 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Answer this please, why would the senate vote on a bill making secession illegal if it was already codified in the USC? I guess you don't like what is in this post do you?
85 posted on 08/05/2010 7:27:23 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

Ol Mad George III ( an earlier Lincoln) didn’t take to much to the idea. Fortunatly we won. Shame they couldn’t have settled on a price to continue the Slave export program which Abe favored over conflict.


86 posted on 08/05/2010 7:29:30 AM PDT by barb-tex (Beat your plowshares into swords and your pruning hooks into spears: Let the weak say I am strong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Per the Constitution, rights are something accorded an individual that comes from God. Powers are something that individuals delegate to governments to perform on their behalf. Secession would not be a right, but a power so how exactly would Jefferson here be talking about secession?

Not all "rights " come from God. "Rights" can be established under a contract or compact. If I enter into a contract with a builder to build a house and he doesn't build it to my specifications per the contract then I (usually) have a right to void the contract. It was of such "Rights " that Jefferson wrote. Instead of calling it secession he called it rupture.

87 posted on 08/05/2010 7:31:10 AM PDT by Timocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: central_va
"Answer this please, why would the senate vote on a bill making secession illegal if it was already codified in the USC?"

I never said that this was codified in the Constitution. In fact what I said is that it is never mentioned in the Constitution. What I asked is where did the founders ever say that there was this power by the states to secede in the first place? I can't find it. However, the writer of the constitution obviously thought this power did not exist. Please read the scholarly research done in post 78.

Tell me something. Did the people in the Southern states have a right to oppress people's liberties? Did the slaves in the Southern states have a God given natural right to rebel against their oppressors?
88 posted on 08/05/2010 7:32:25 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden; An.American.Expatriate
An.American.Expatriate, let's try explaining this with pictures:

Let A represent "Federal Government's powers as delegated & Enumerated by the Constitution" and be the ellipse formed by areas #1 & #2.
Let B represent "State Government's powers and responsibilities" and be the ellipse formed by areas #2 & #3.
Let C represent the rights & responsibilities of the people and be the rectangle #4.

Because of the nature of authority, a certain power/position cannot institute a separate/subordinate power/position with GREATER powers than the parent.
This diagram then correctly shows the derivations of powers known as governments to be of less sweeping powers than that of the people.
There are some areas where there is an overlap between Federal and State powers, namely defense: witness the clause of [state] militia called up in service of the Federal Government in the Constitution.

The tenth amendment states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is correctly portrayed as the shaded area ['powers not delegated'], as you can see the Federal government has no authority over powers not so delegated.

89 posted on 08/05/2010 7:32:59 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 63 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
I didn’t realize Ron Paul was this ignorant. Is that quote accurate? Out of context?

Here's a MTP transcript excerpt I found:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

What about this do you find "ignorant," except perhaps that he seems to concede that the War Between the States was fought to eliminate slavery?

ML/NJ

90 posted on 08/05/2010 7:34:41 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
There’s not a word about *keeping* it either.

Why mention something you aren't changing, and have no intention of changing? If you want something abolished, you should mention it. There is nothing in the Constitution saying “The Articles are rescinded.” There is nothing it the Constitution saying “The Perpetual Union is now temporary and transitory.”
91 posted on 08/05/2010 7:35:37 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: You want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Timocrat
"It was of such "Rights " that Jefferson wrote. Instead of calling it secession he called it rupture."

Jefferson in your quote talked about not having to submit to a government of unlimited powers. Would you define unlimited powers as a government trying to ensure that new member states and territories had the rights of all it's people's protected (i.e. not extending slavery to the new states and territories)? Thats what the Southern states were rebelling against after all. The federal government was not even trying to force the Southern states to abolish slavery.
92 posted on 08/05/2010 7:36:10 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Thank you for bringing this quotation to my attention.


93 posted on 08/05/2010 7:40:47 AM PDT by Cheburashka (Stephen Decatur: You want barrels of gunpowder as tribute, you must expect cannonballs with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
Tell me something. Did the people in the Southern states have a right to oppress people's liberties? Did the slaves in the Southern states have a God given natural right to rebel against their oppressors?

Slavery was legal, although immoral, it's legacy was part of our country racist past North and South. The manufacturing culture of the North didn't need the slave model so in the early 19th century they sold all their slaves "down the river" to the south. Then they (Northern mercantile class) raised tariffs on imports after making money on selling their slaves to the south. Then they turned against that "peculiar" institution on moral grounds making the hypocrisy factor unbelievable.

94 posted on 08/05/2010 7:42:06 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
Why can't people simply disagree without placing placing themselves on a moral plateau?

and he should be ashamed.

95 posted on 08/05/2010 7:42:11 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ml/nj

So Ron Paul was saying the Federal government should have just bought all of the slaves. What if the people did not want to sell their slaves Mr. Paul, what then? He makes it sound so easy. Besides, the Emancipation proclamation was not done (abolishing slavery) until 1863 when the southern states were already in rebellion. Before the Civil War Lincoln never talked about abolishing slavery, merely not extending slavery to new states and territories.


96 posted on 08/05/2010 7:42:54 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
seven states illegally declared their “independence” from the United States

"Illegally"? Stopped reading here.

97 posted on 08/05/2010 7:45:09 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheburashka

>No place does the Constitution say, “The Articles are rescinded.” No place does the Constitution say, “The formerly perpetual union is now temporary and transitory.” The Convention didn’t have an objection to continuing the perpetual union thing, so they left it the way it was. Nothing dubious about it at all.

The Constitution created a Federal government called the United States, correct?
The Constitution sets up the structure of that government, correct?
The Constitution also delineates specific powers & responsibilities to that government, correct?
The Constitution makes no mention of secession, correct?
The Constitution also says, in the Tenth Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” correct?
Therefore, if secession [or using force to prevent it] is not specifically mentioned [delegated] to the United States by the Constitution then it must be reserved to the States or the People, correct?


98 posted on 08/05/2010 7:45:23 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 80 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
What if the people did not want to sell their slaves buy health insurance Mr. Paul, what then?
99 posted on 08/05/2010 7:47:20 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Michael Zak
A supposed constitutional right for a state to secede did not occur to people until the 1820s. It never even came up during the convention or ratification.

Probably because it was so obvious and self-evident that there was no reason to discuss it. For the Framers to secede from Britain but deny the right of secession to their own states would make them colossal hypocrites.

100 posted on 08/05/2010 7:47:32 AM PDT by Sloth (Civil disobedience? I'm afraid only the uncivil kind is going to cut it this time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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