Posted on 05/06/2009 10:35:26 AM PDT by cowboyway
The were admitted, they didn't join.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession. Thus, any state can legally secede any time.
So is that a round-about way of saying Madison is correct and that if one state is free to leave then 49 states are also free to expel?
Of course not, and don't be silly.
Why not? If it was such a great idea in 1809 and such a tremendous benefit to the people in Africa then why not 2009? Or don't they need our help anymore?
Do you dispute Dr. Williams's observation? Would he be better off if he were in Congo or Rwanda or Kenya or whichever tyrannical African satrapy than he is in America?
I don't know. Would Dr. Williams have wanted to be plucked from his home, crammed into a ship, sent thousands of miles away, and spend the rest of his life in slave labor? Would he have seen that as an improvement over what he had? How about you? Would you view chattel slavery in the U.S. for you and your decendants preferable to life as a free person, even in Africa?
Then by all means feel free to provide your own quotes from the gentlemen showing how they felt otherwise.
Because it was a military measure, under Lincoln's power as commander in chief, and as such could only be applied to those areas in rebellion. To free the slaves in the states that remained loyal to the United States would require a constitutional amendment, and the Democrats in Congress had enough votes to block such a measure, since it would require a two-thirds majority. It wasn't until the elections of November 1864 gave the Republicans enough votes that Lincoln was able to get the amendment through.
I swear, you Lost Causers attack Lincoln for being a dictator, then attack him for not being more dictatorial.
Incidentally, the one place where Lincoln could free the slaves without a constitutional amendment was in the District of Columbia, and this was done in April, 1862, with a simple majority vote of Congress.
They were admitted afte rapplying. It was their choice. Furthermore, the states — the original ones anyway — predate teh Union. The states created the Union, not vice versa, therefore they can leave the Union or dissove it if they choose. As I said, nothing prohibits secession, so any state could legally secede if it chose to do so. Thus, Mr. lincoln’s use of force to prevent them from doing so violated the Constitution.
To quote Eldridge Cleaver on his return to America from China, Cuba, and other such countries, “I would rather be in prison in the United States than ‘free’ in any of those countries.” Nobody is saying we shoudl reinstitute slavery, bu Cleaver is right and so is Dr. Williams. Black Americans are freer, richer, and generally better off than the black peope in the countries of their ancestry. There is NO question that that is true. Had their ancestors not been brought here, many of them would not be here today.
Slavery was horrible, but the descendents of slaves are clarly better off.
Much of the North's problem was self induced! My Family in Southern Missouri didn't own anything other than a farm and maybe a Mule or two. They write about Union Armies burning anything in sight!
From the writings I have/ they took up Arms against the Union AFTER their Farms and homes got burned! After all this my GGG Uncle was starved to Death for not swearing an oath of loyalty
That would be a tough choice- Swear to be loyal to those that killed your kids and raped your wife or Die yourself- He did what any self respecting man would've done
What color was his uniform when he said that....
Ah yes, a poll. If polls are that accurate then John Kerry would have won the election in 2004 wouldn't he?
You know that, but the typical NS MO is to lie, spin and lie some more.
Lying and spinning are your forte.
A yankee judge is in my corner and it's killing you.
Do you realize how ridiculous that is? One judge writes an error-filled essay supporting every Southron myth in the books and that's supposed to bother me? It might, if that Yankee judge knew what he was saying. What if I said that Bill Clinton, a Southern politician, said the South was wrong in rebelling? Would that cause you to lose any sleep?
Huh?
Let me try it again without my typos. Ronald Reagan won the election in 1980 with 50.75% of the popular vote, a bare plurality. But he took 91% of the electoral vote and his election is seen as a landslide victory and a repudiation of Jimmy Carter. Now, would you agree that his election was a resounding beat-down for Jimmy Carter or that he squeaked into office by the skin of his teeth?
You wanna see stupid? Look in the mirror.
I don't need to go that far to deal with stupid. I've got you.
Your sense of self worth is only exceeded by your inability to admit that you're wrong.
Show me where I'm wrong first.
Since you seem to like Frederick Douglass, here's what he said about the Emancipation Proclamation:
Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.
bttt
“You wanna see stupid? Look in the mirror.”
That happens with Pokie every morning so he figures it works that way for everyone...
I agree that the North forced her way onto the South, no state should have to fight her way out of this abysmal Union, yes, that it silly.
“OK, so if he never said the war was about anything else then how can I provide a quote to that effect? Tell me that.”
Not what I said. I said prove that the quote you provided is the only one on the topic. All you have to do is peruse everything the man said to find an absence of any other quotes on the topic. Otherwise, what is represented may or may not be the whole of his thinking on the matter.
” Sure you are. Otherwise you wouldn’t be off on one of your mouth foaming rants.”
Nope. No foam. No rant. Just logic.
“But scholarship isn’t just a Northern tactic.”
Indeed, it often does not even exist.
“You could provide your own quotes showing other points of view.”
I could, but we weren’t addressing my point view. We were addressing your point of view. I have pretty much establish that yours is based on interpretive quotes as demonstrated by the use of brackets. If you concede the point then we can go to my point of view. If not, why move on to a new point of view when we haven’t finished with the first one. Unless, of course, you are employing a tactic to hide your weak position.
“Toombs and others blathered on about tariffs and such, even though evidence indicates the South actually imported little and paid less in tariffs. Go ahead and trot them out.”
Ah.. Yet a third and unrelated point of discussion. Further demonstrating the weakness of the first.
You mean, “Nope. Don’t know any” don’t you?
Nope. Mean exactly what I said. But you seldom if ever address what is actually said, choosing instead to introduce other rabbits to chase in hopes that others will be distracted and not realize that you pathetically lost the first point.
Now, back to where we started. Prove that the quotes provided represent the total thinking about the subject as expressed in documentation.
I beg to differ
If the Federal Government tried to ban Firearms and the States pulled from the Union- Would Firearm be the main reason or the Straw the broke the camels back?
Lincoln didn't like or care about Blacks! They became a tool and would remain enslaved IF the South rejoined the Union.
Lincoln didn't invade the South to Free slaves no more than Hitler used gas to clean people!
In August, 1862, Lincoln convened a White House conference with black leaders and said to them: “Why should people of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave this country? You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between any
other two races. Whether it is right or wrong, I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while we suffer from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated.”
Not at all. You only have to look at states like Colorado and Kansas to realize that the desires of the people in the territories don't matter compared to the will of Congress. Kansas presented three different constitutions before Congress would agree to admit them. Colorado first requested statehood in 1864, it was 1876 before they were finally admitted.
The states created the Union, not vice versa, therefore they can leave the Union or dissove it if they choose
One could say the Union created most of the states - 37 of them anyway - by admitting them into the Union. If Congress has to approve admission then shouldn't it have to approve leaving?
As I said, nothing prohibits secession, so any state could legally secede if it chose to do so.
A whole lot of men of the period would disagree with you on that one. And not just Lincoln, either. Jackson, Clay, Madison, Webster, Buchanan, all were on record as saying secession was illegal altogether or, in the case of Madison, permissible with the consent of the states.
Thus, Mr. lincoln’s use of force to prevent them from doing so violated the Constitution.
I'd point out that Lincoln did nothing to prevent the Southern secession, not being president when it happened. And once inaugurated he did nothing to force the Southern states back into the Union until they chose war to further their aims.
To quote Eldridge Cleaver on his return to America from China, Cuba, and other such countries, “I would rather be in prison in the United States than ‘free’ in any of those countries.”
That's not the question. The question was would you, yourself, prefer to be abducted and hauled off to a life of chattel slavery over life in Africa at the time. Speaking only for myself, I'd say no. I think Milton said it best when he said, "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven." I believe any free man worth his salt would agree with that.
And yet they tried....
Because they were subjects of the king, not parties to an agreement entered into voluntarily. Surely you can do better than that.
Just because you have a right doesn't mean someone won't try to take it away. If the feds want to take away my guns, I will fight to retain that right.
For all but the original 13, they were allowed to join. If they needed the permission of the other states to enter then why not to leave as well?
Surely you can do better than that.
How was that?
Just because you have a right doesn't mean someone won't try to take it away. If the feds want to take away my guns, I will fight to retain that right.
More power to you. But the fact that you say you will fight would probably not make the feds back off in fear. They'd probably oppose you right back.
Since you served in the Navy- I'll ask you
What flag waved over them Slave ships? USA of Confederate? Did they dock in a Northern port?
OK, I did that and didn't find any. Happy now?
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.