Posted on 10/19/2010 9:15:22 AM PDT by Bodleian_Girl
You should know by now that making that kind of response doesn't exactly mark you as a mental giant, either.
You didn't respond to my examples either. An army, a partnership, a contract aren't things you can just turn your back on whenever you like.
Also, the north started the war. They pressured the south until they were forced to fire on Fort Sumter. Had the North removed the fort from confederate territory it wouldn't have been fired upon and the war wouldn't have started.
Right. So Poland "pressured" Germany by not evacuating Danzig or East Silesia. Gosh, the pressure must have been unbearable.
The north precipitated the war and only someone with their minds closed to the fact would not see that and be aware of it.
So your "minds" are more open than other people's? Some how I kind of doubt it.
You've made up your mind that the US is like the a hotel that different states can check into and check out of without regard to ongoing responsibilities, and no amount of discussion is going to change your opinion.
I thought like you did once, back in high school, but after examining the evidence, I've come to see that there's more to be said for the opposing view, that severing ties between parts of the country is something so monumental, that it can't be done lightly.
It has been spun down through the years and taught as if the south started it but they didn't. The north could have very simply let the southern states go their way and no war would have occurred.
I guess you can simply let criminals take what they want out of your house and no crime has occurred, but if one thinks one is right, sometimes one has to take a stand.
Whether this would have been good for the US I'm not sure, but I do know states rights would still be in effect.
There wouldn't be much of a country left. It would be the end of federalism, not its triumph.
I am enough of a mental giant, I have a 141 IQ, I doubt that you even come close. Here’s the deal, the same creator that bestowed the other rights mentioned in the constitution upon mankind, bestowed the right to govern ourselves upon us. The constitution even mentions the fact that we that right. That means we have the right to secede from the Union and have always had that right. When we judge that the people governing us have slipped past the point of self governance by, of and for the people then we have the right to secede from that Union and form another type of government. As I said before, if you don’t understand that then you do indeed have sh** for brains, whether you like it or not.
Great posts, x, and your point was made by our Founders, from Day One.
Virginia's James Madison writing to New York's Alexander Hamilton in July, 1788:
"The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.
Madison again in 1830, writing to a fellow Virginian, son-in-law of Thomas Jefferson and future diplomat -- the young Nicholas P. Trist:
"...the compact [US Constitution] being among individuals as embodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself."The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
"It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."
In 1860, the Deep South seceded "at pleasure."
There were no "usurpations" or "abuses" of Federal power -- just the opposite.
The Deep South's only real complaint was that the Federal government was not doing enough to enforce Fugitive Slave laws in non-slave states.
Having seceded "at pleasure," the South then started a war of choice that it could have easily avoided, by simply not shooting at northerners.
Dude, you're going to have to show me where it says that in the Constitution.
You're probably thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is fine, but did the Founders really want us to be bailing out on elected governments whenever things didn't go our way? Or were they thinking that the right of revolution could only be exercised when other channels of action had failed?
That means we have the right to secede from the Union and have always had that right. When we judge that the people governing us have slipped past the point of self governance by, of and for the people then we have the right to secede from that Union and form another type of government.
Show me where it says that in the Constitution. I'm not saying that you don't have the right to form a new government, just that you have to go through channels first if the government is at all representative and republican.
If the government respects basic constitutional rights, and is responsive to the majority as expressed in elections, you don't just get to walk away and take over federal property. If the government is really tyrannical, you have that right of revolution, but that wasn't the case in 1860 (or even today).
As I said before, if you don’t understand that then you do indeed have sh** for brains, whether you like it or not.
I have been listening to arguments about this for years now. There is disagreement now. There was more disagreement 150 years ago. Obviously, then, there are things that intelligent people can disagree about, and that was even more true in 1860.
Even James Buchanan believed that unilateral secession was unconditional (thought he didn't believe the federal government could stop it). Other experts agreed that secession violated the Constitution. Or you can go back to the warnings of Webster and Clay a decade before: there was a widespread conviction that secession would mean civil war.
I've been telling people that the CSA (the government) wasn't just like us -- it wasn't just a bunch of guys who liked to complain about government after work. It was (or aspired to be) a government itself. It was politicians who had power and wanted more. It was slaveowners who wanted guaranteed freedoms for slaveowners.
But come to think of it, the CSA (the government) was a lot like you. They made up their mind that they were right and that there were no legitimate counter-arguments. Jefferson Davis believed that nobody in their right mind could disagree with him. Fire-eaters, like Toombs, Yancey, and Wigfall -- believed that nobody would dare resist them, or if anyone did, they'd be easily overcome. How did that work out for them?
That's what gets me. Conservatives who supposedly hold the typical conservative distrust for the manipulations, intrusions and usurpations of the political class uncritically embrace the cause of this movement of political power seekers.
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.