Posted on 01/07/2013 4:01:08 AM PST by Kaslin
If you’re going to drink whiskey like a man, then why not drink the whiskey named after where Lincoln was born, Knob Creek (KY).
The federal government can 'own' nothing. Everything it has, it holds in delegated trust for the States.
The forts were surety...basically any property in that federal trust that was built in one State was forfeited should the State show the other States failed to up hold the terms of the Constitutional Compact.
-----
The South, unhappy with the status quo, wanted to spread slavery and force it upon people who were for freedom.
In 1835, the USSC Court's Court of Appeals in Jack v. Martin stated:
I regard this as but the entering wedge to other doctrines which are designed to extirpate slavery; and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided.
The Northern States continued to pass laws to prevent what was legally established as Constitutional procedure concerning the return of fugitive slaves...... so the South left the Compact. Just as they did from the previous compact known as the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
-------
If bad consequences came from the Civil War it was because the South didn't have a just cause for rebellion.
LOL! You mean against an unconstitutional government?
Is it non bonded?
LLS
FMCDH(BITS)
I remember when we first started gathering for Tea Party events in the park and the state house and the stupid libs would come up and yell things like "Real Americans drink coffee!" And I would say "Exactly", and you could see the confused look on the lib's face.
Do schools still teach history?
If bad consequences came from the Civil War it was because the South didn't have a just cause for rebellion.
BS
The south was well on its way to get rid of slavery. This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.FMCDH(BITS)
Then why was the South trying to spread slavery to new territories?
This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.
States didn't have the right to secede or to form their own sovereign nation. And as far as rebellion goes, they didn't have a just cause.
The South had no right to claim the property as a sovereign nation. They had no right to fire upon resupply ships either.
The Northern States continued to pass laws to prevent what was legally established as Constitutional procedure concerning the return of fugitive slaves
I guess you are going to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision. I guess you are all for state's rights except when those states respected freedom for all men.
LOL! You mean against an unconstitutional government?
This subject isn't funny. The South had no right to form a sovereign nation and the expansion of slavery and forcing it upon those who respected freedom for all men was an unjust cause.
Can someone in the GOP please stop digging?
Your right! The Constitution was suspended during those years.
FMCDH(BITS)
This is accurate. Northern personal liberty laws were intended to put extreme roadblocks in the way of the constitutional provision requiring one state to allow extradition of fugitive slaves to a state requesting their return.
However, this wasn't really an issue to southerners in 1860, other than as an example of northern antagonism. In 1854 the Fugitive Slave Act had made the return of fugitives a federal responsibility implemented by federal marshals and commissioners, and if necessary federal troops.
Northern personal liberty laws were irrelevant in 1860, and had been for six years, since the cases bypassed northern state courts.
Exactly how the FSA, greatly expanding federal power at the expense of states, is an example of defending states' rights, is quite beyond me.
The actual precipitating factor in the splintering of the Democratic Party, the last national institution other than the federal government itself, was a southern demand for a federal slave code in the territories, enforced if necessary by federal troops against the wishes of the inhabitants.
Another demand for new federal powers to protect and expand slavery. Not exactly a great example of states' rights.
The northern states agreed to the terms of the compact when they signed it. Just because they decided to move FORWARD with their own ideals instead of using constitutional measures to change it is what gave birth to our current [gag] democracy.
The South had no right to form a sovereign nation and the expansion of slavery and forcing it upon those who respected freedom for all men was an unjust cause.
The South was forcing slavery on no one, they were merely insisting the other States live up to their agreement to adhere to the compact.
The Founders put the slavery clause NOT under the powers of Congress, but under Article V .... the States. They then passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which gave the procedure for the return of fugitive slaves.
THIS IS WHAT THE NORTHERN STATES agreed to do, then turned around and refused to do so.
Trying to justify the act of perjury of the Northern States by claiming some type of moral high ground is blatant hypocrisy.
Which was unconstitutional. The federal government had no authority FORCING any State to fulfill their part of the Constitutional agreement. THAT was the responsibility of the State itself.
---------
Another demand for new federal powers to protect and expand slavery.
I can think of several instances of the federal government being told they had no authority over the issue, which is true.
Your repeated insitstance that 'demands' of some kid were made, however, lack any supporting evidence on your part.
kid = kind
Pick a better country.
Probably the biggest lie the Lost Causers ever conjured up. Slavery had never been as profitable and vital to the Southern economy as it was in 1860. No one in the South at that time had any inclination to end slavery. In fact, even advocating for the end of slavery was illegal in the South.
This whole thing was about states rights VS the federal government taking more control OVER the states.
Please cite even one example of the Federal Government trying to take more control over the states in 1860. Just one.
They surely enforced it on 4 million slaves in the 15 Slave states.
The Fugitive Slave Act was the first time the Federal Government had the power to act directly upon citizens by forcing them, even against their will, to capture and detain fugitive slaves.
The Dred Scott decision forced Federal territories and their citizens far away from the South to accept slavery. And a close reading of Scott would even allow slave owners to bring their slaves into Free States against the laws of those states, yet be protected under Federal law.
The South was indeed forcing slavery upon the entire nation by using Federal Power, yet those who would long after the war cite 'States Rights' as their cause applauded those Federal violations of States Rights during the 1850s.
Then, by that logic neither can the state own anything which doubles the offense by South Carolina when it illegally seized property it had no claim to.
What an odd comment. You mean like when taney held that negroes weren't really people? Or like when SCOTUS held against Pennsylvania in the Prigg case? Or Congress via the Fugitive Slave Act which sought to placate the idiotic slavers? Or perhaps the Compromise of 1860 which attempted the same? That "unconstitutional government"?
"They surely enforced it on 4 million slaves in the 15 Slave states."
I'll admit that first sentence was the biggest facepalm comment of the day.
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.