Oonga Boonga.
You seem to be something of a Civil War scholar so I am hoping you can explain something to me: Did the Yankee army of the 1860s sacrifice hundreds of thousands of themselves while killing hundreds of thousands of their rebel brothers because they wanted to free the black slaves? Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my question.
Oonga Boonga.
Second, if the supremacy clause is as plain as all that, then you would appear to be suggesting that the people of the south were just plain ignorant to a self evident truth. But that is not really so damning to your cause as the historical fact, contained in the posted article that three states made their ratification of the constitution, along with its "supremacy clause" contingent on their right to leave the union if it were hostile to the welfare of its citizens. If joining the union did away with any future right to leave, under the coercive power of an onerous supremacy clause, why would the states insert language into their ratification of that document that gave them the option of leaving that union of states?
"Let's give it up, ok, or do you want slavery and indentured servitude back?"
I see. In your mind, ANY debate on the legitimacy of the southern cause and the constitutionality of the union's incursion into the south makes one by necessity an advocate of a return to slavery.
It is so curious that you accuse others of slander when you so blatantly engage in the same thing. Many southerners who fought on the side of the confederacy sought the abolition of slavery. To suggest that I would want a return to involuntary servitude is an insult. By the 1860s, the institution was dying. It would not have survived the advent of the 20th century. What did not survive is the type of republic invisioned by the framers and that the American people enjoyed prior to the war.
Let me ask you these questions: if a man and woman enter into a marriage are there any circumstances under which that union can be dissolved? if two men enter into a partnership, are the two partners bound to remain in that partnership into perpetuity? You assume that entering into a union necessitates the perpetuity of that union at all costs, regardless of the abuses suffered by one party at the hands of another. You suggest that the union itself is of such great importance that it cannot be tampered with. I would ask you what is the inherent value of that union if it no longer perpetuates or promotes the welfare of its adherents?
I would assume that pertaining to the conflict between the colonies and Great Britain you would be perfectly consistent and would say that the colonies were bound to maintain their allegiance to the king. After all, the ties between the colonies and the Crown were every bit as legitimate as those between the states and the federal government. After all the sovereignty of the King and the integrity of the British Empire must be preserved.
Oh, there is a difference you say. The supremacy clause! Well we have dealt with that haven't we. You seem hell-bent on asserting its relevance but have failed to explain it.
"Boy, it's arguments like this that really give traction to the liberal argument that conservative are a bunch of mouth-breathing neanderthals."
You are asserting that anyone questioning the legitmacy of the actions of the North is a "mouth-breathing neandrethal." Not only are you implying that those in our own day are such creatures, but all who questioned the northern position in the 1860s were such creatures. But you were the one that lashed out against the author of the posted article for his slander of Mr. Lincoln. I guess inconsistency isn't a problem for you, after all the union must be preserved!
By the way, Webster's Dictionary traces the origin of the word scalawag to 1848. Its most common meaning is "SCAMP, REPROBATE." While, I cannot vouch for the eternal status of Mr. Lincoln, I can state most clearly that he was most definitely a scamp. Mr. Lincoln took an oath to uphold the constitution. Invading the southern states to maintian a union by coercion was a violation of that constittution in the same way that it would be a violation of the business partnership agreement if one party held a gun at the head of another simply to maintain the partnerhsip.
Boy, its arguments like yours that lead men of honor to proclaim the conflict of the 1860s as the second war of independence. It is the actions of the victors and the arguments of Northern apologists that has given rise to the intrusive nanny state. You see, the past isn't over, it isn't even past is it?