Replies

This article was proposed, and rejected, at the Philadelphia Convention:

"Under this Constitution, as originally adopted and as it now exists, no State has power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States; and this Constitution, and all laws passed in pursuance of its delegated powers, are the supreme late [sp?] of the land, anything contained in any constitution, ordinance, or act of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Good Grief...

The vote on the article you cited above was part of a proposed amendment to the US Constitution taken up by the US Senate on March 2 1861, the day after Lincoln took office.

The Philidelphia Convention where the US Constitution was drafted took place in 1787, involving a completely different set of circumstances and cast of characters.

Please consider this post a general cease and desist order.

STOP FABRICATING US HISTORY!

STOP FABRICATING US HISTORY!

That's all they can do at this point. It's clear their warping of states rights has fallen on deaf ears.

The CSA wannabes here (not to be confused with those who are proud of their history), want to frame the debate as a states rights thing, but that's not what the CSA was actually fighting for and the declarations from the states of the CSA prove it.

Any system that held another human in slavery should have been abolished. It's too bad that the people who held them went to war to try to keep them. It's also very sad that people who call themselves freedom-loving conservatives need to warp a noble cause like states rights to cover for this abomination of a system.

Conservatism is not compatible with slavery. Shilling for the CSA cannot be considered a conservative act in any way.

[Me, erring] This article was proposed, and rejected, at the Philadelphia Convention:

[You, delightedly feigning outrage] Please consider this post a general cease and desist order.

STOP FABRICATING US HISTORY!

Keep your shirt on. I misattributed a quote I got from another thread last March and mislabeled the saved file as well.

The conversation in question began with this question put to me by FReeper Diamond about admission and secession of States, in particular Missouri, admitted after the original 13 had formed the Union:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/backroom/2468441/posts?page=90#90,

whereupon Idabilly posted and pointed us both to the linked paragraph. I didn't realize it didn't have to do with the Philadelphia Convention at all, but instead the series of negotiations having to do with the Corwin Amendment so-called (in which I've never taken much of an interest myself, since I've always considered it a red herring). I confused it with Elliott's and thought it was from the Philadelphia Convention, and so I saved it and misidentified it and went on to answer FReeper Diamond's question. I made a mistake about provenience of the link, which I couldn't correct by reading the quote, but would have had to pull up the link and pull out the context myself -- which didn't really have to do with the admission of Missouri to the Union.

That all said, I apologize for the misattributed cite and quote.