Posted on 10/31/2001 4:13:33 AM PST by smolensk
Then what do you suggest Ill Deuce?
Even though your 'gotcha' was not directed at me regarding the Texas vs White case, let me give you a 'gotcha' in return.
To a true Southerner, and many New Jersians and Ohioans of the day, that decision didn't mean any more to us than the Dred Scott decision meant to Northerners. Why?
Because it was rendered AFTER the illegal and fraudulent ratification of the 14th Amendment which it pertains to. Oh, but you knew that already right?
"...freedom to half of its slave population with the condition that after manumission they couldn't remain in the South, but would have to move up North..."
Oh...Really....
...so, if it was Soooo Wonderful for every one of the 'Freed Men' up North....Why was the Law in Indiana written to NOT ALLOW ANY Freed Slaves inside it's borders????
...so, if it was Soooo Wonderful for every one of the 'Freed Men' up North....Why did soooo many of the 'Freed Slaves' come back South - many to very Farm that they 'escaped' from - to try to get back to work?
No, my dear Friend.....The War of Northern Agression was NOT on account of any one or all Slaves.
Try hitting your favorite search engine and looking for the words "State's Rights" and see what you might be able to learn....?
The Constitution was ratified by the individual states, with the understanding that if something didn't work out as planned each state had the option to back out of that agreement. The majority of the States in the South did not appreciate the things that Lincoln was attempting to do - mainly, enforcing the Constitution as he saw fit (If not completely ignoring it, all together).
THAT's why a split began to form in Lincoln's precious union. Frankly, Lincoln couldn't have cared less if those handful of states wanted to break free - but the mere thought of those states being recognized by a foreign nation, as an Independent Nation, was more than his ego could handle.
"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union."
The opinion is ridiculous only in that you disagree with it. The judgement is biased only because you say it is. Neither thing means a damned thing. The Supreme Court ruling is the final interpretation of the Constitution, not yours or mine, and they ruled secession is unconstitutional. Live with it.
As for not going on you should have felt free to do so. So far you did nothing but spout your opinion without a single reference to back them up. Far from being too right, you weren't right on a single argument. IMHO, of course.
My side lost..although we may have won in the long run...compare my home of Nashville with most "Yankee" cities.
I'm not too happy about losing but it's a badge I don't mind carrying...being a Southerner.
However...we now have a more serious conflict that affects us all....why not have a temporary truce???....then after we crush our common enemies we can all get back to refighting the WBTS and even Reconstruction (still continuing in my view)???
Regards...
No really thanks for the bump. I see the gang's all back and Non, I have an interesting interpretation of the all Holy Emancipation Proclamation to discuss with you. Right now, I have to hand out candy if I don't eat it all first!!
I'm not in favor of denying anyone the right to vote on the basis of race; whatever standards there are should be applied equally and fairly, but the North was being hypocritical.
The rift was so terrible that it was decided by the Founding Fathers, led by Washington, that the Capital should be moved South to prevent a premature fracturing of the Union. (That is how the Capital ended up in on a swamp in Virginia via Philadelphia)
Of course, as we all know, the South massively increased their slave holdings between 1800 and 1860, while the North was becoming more and more Industrialized and less dependant on manual labor. The apetite for Slavery in the North was on the decline as it was on the increase in the South (pity that we can't see the affect that mechanized farm equipment would of had on Slavery, but that is another story).
Even Washington, with his great power to persuade the masses, didn't try to push the slavery issue, even though his own preference would have been to free the slaves as soon as practicle. (He treated his slaves well. He bought slaves in families to keep them together, and his slaves lived better then the poor white farmers in the region. Upon his Death, he willed that, as soon as Martha passed on, all of his slaves be freed and his estate split up for them).
Now we have this lawyer named Lincoln. He understood this rift between the North and South, and he played it to a fault to get elected. His speech at Cooper Union in NYC riled up the abolishonists and scared the hell out of the South. Lincoln knew that war was inevitable if he was elected, but he didn't give it a second thought. And the South pushed over the edge, gave him all the power he needed to suspend Congress, habeus corpus and seek the War Emergency Powers that we suffer under until this day
Personally, I think Lincoln was a fool who would do anything for power.
If only slaves had been freed when we won the Revolution. Can you imagine what sort of Country we would have?
I honestly hope you don't believe that. Slavery had nothing to do with it as has been proven time and time again from documentation of northern newspapers, the black slaveowners in the South, and Lincoln's own words.
Take a good strong look at the Emancipation Proclamation, good ol' Abe's supposed attempt to prevent freeing the slaves. Yes I said freeing the slaves. Exactly when was that signed into law? Sept 22,1862. Look at the wording. If and ONLY IF the South did not cease actions against the north within 90 days were the slaves to be considered released. If the South had turned from its actions of remembering the Constitution and bowed its knee willingly at the feet of a Tyrant by Jan 1, 1863, according to Lincoln's own document, the slaves would NOT, I repeat NOT be freed. The South would join again with the states of the Union which included 5 slaveowning states, the state of Oregon which joined the Union in 1859 and under its original constitution did not allow anyone that wasn't white to live in their state, and the home state of good ol' Honest "I'll stab you in the back for a power grab" Abe, Illinois, which BTW in 1853 forbade blacks from even living in their state with one of many northern black laws instituted years before the War
tpaine, the South did abide by the Constitution (althought I know you have been taught otherwise), it was the North that didn't respect the Constitution.
Next time you find some new state quarters, notice that all the original 13 colonies have statehood dates of 1787, EXCEPT N. Carolina and Rhode Island which are 1788 and 1789 respectively. Now can you tell me what status these territories were during this interim times? I do assume you knew this right?
Well, I'll tell you just in case. They existed as sovereign countries (like France, Germany, England, etc). AND, if you will read the ratifying resolutions of EACH and EVERY state when they agreed to ratifying the constitution, they ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION RESERVED THEIR SOVEREIGNTY with the clear intent that if they didn't like being part of the UNION, that they reserved the right to withdraw from it.
Now people like Story, Webster, Lodge, and others can twist this around all they want (focusing on the one word 'perpetual'), but it doesn't change the intentions of these states at this time.
Just like the North refused to honor the findings of the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott decision (because they claimed most of the judges were biased to the South), I as a Southerner refuse to accept the validity of the Texas vs White case where the justices were hand picked Republicans and the decision preordained. However, the central pleading of this case was not the question of whether or not a state had the right to secede.
Here is what Chase said regarding the question of secession.
'We are very sensible of the magnitude and importance of this question, of the interest it excites, and of the difficulty, not to say impossibility, of so disposing of it as to satisfy the conflicting judgments of men equally enlightened, equally upright, and equally patriotic. But we meet it in the case, and we must determine it in the exercise of our best judgment, under the guidance of the Constitution alone.'
True, the Northern people wanted the slaves to be free, but they wanted someone else (Southerners) to have to deal with them and live with them and to suffer the threat of genocide from a black rebellion (similar to what happened in Hayti).
I am saying that if the South had threatened to send half the blacks living in the south up to the North to live and to compete for jobs, then the abolitionists would have been 'run out of town' and 'made to shut up' by the protests of other northerners who wouldn't have wanted blacks to be sent up north.
It would have put the spotlight on Northern hypocrisy in a big way. Heck, Northerners didn't even want Catholics up there! Show me a Puritan, a Quaker, a Congregationalist, or a Unitarian, and I don't want to have anything to do with them because they know better than anyone else - they are perfect, and everyone else is a letchurer and sinner.
Get it 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.