Posted on 03/31/2010 3:04:35 PM PDT by TitansAFC
I don't suppose you can actually support that claim, can you? Or is it another one of those southron urban legends, like the one that Texas has a special clause in its constitution that allows it to secede?
The government can’t take what I don’t have and will spend their time trying to take from those that do have...if it ever comes to that.
I have no reason to believe that most would have willingly sold without a better than fair price and an alternative to slave labor.
The logic of those who think slavery was wrong but it was ok to kill tens of thousands to free them evades me just as the logic of killing people instead of granting them independence in accordance with the Declaration of Independence.
Ma’am, thank you very much. ;-)
No need to. Stupid Supreme Court found the stupid Southern acts of unilateral secession to be unconstitutional. Now you need a stupid constitutional amendment or a stupid future court to overturn Texas v White.
Once again: you have a LIMITED resource (slaves . . . not slave labor); with each additional purchase, the price of remaining scarce resources goes up exponentially. You know this to be an economic fact, and I'm stunned you would deny it.
It was also made POLITICALLY unfeasible (to answer the question that you tried to shift the argument to) because of the unique nature of government support of slavery in a particular region.
Either way, the cost of the slaves was infinte, because you would never, ever get to zero without force.
“a lot of them got away with coming up north, stealing free blacks and dragging them down south to be sold and lost among the slave population.”
Different.
You are comparing having an already indigenous LEGAL population of slaves in which to hide those few illegal contraband kidnapped freemen.
We’re talking when it is illegal, all the indigenous slaves are freed. Now how are you going to hide millions of illegal contraband slaves?
How about those who thought slavery was right and launched a war that killed hundreds of thousands in order to protect their ability to own other people? Where they in the right?
We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. That controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we can learn exactly—can reduce to the lowest elements—what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. We think it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go further than that; we don’t propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which I don’t suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to,—the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. We don’t suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guarantees thrown around it.(...)
He (Douglas) has the high distinction, so far as I know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or the other, but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him in the first place, that his leader don’t talk as he does, for he never says that it is wrong. In the second place, I suggest to him, that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. If you will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who says that he is as much opposed to slavery as I am, will tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don’t you constantly object to anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in the Free States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in the Slave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no suitable place to oppose it. There is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming.
“Where they in the right?”
LOL! Babbling again, I see.
In what way?
Read your sentence. It’s “were,” not “where.” Though much more entertaining. Here, try “who dat who say who dat?”
Fair enough. So let me rephrase it: Were they right?
Click on the link below and look at article 8 vote: The anti-secession law was voted down by the senate.
Actually, the yeas were 18 not 19.
If it were true as you stated, no. But then it’s a matter of what do you believe took place, Northern aggression or Southern defense of homeland...a discussion we both know you and I will never agree on.
But more important in terms of today’s reality, I’d rather have my position/belief and know that the tragedy of Obama would have never occurred than to be a Lincoln nationalist and know that I wholeheartedly support the course of history that has led us to Obamunism.
And you are entitled to your position/belief no matter how inaccurate it is.
But more important in terms of today’s reality, I’d rather have my position/belief and know that the tragedy of Obama would have never occurred than to be a Lincoln nationalist and know that I wholeheartedly support the course of history that has led us to Obamunism
Hear, hear!!!
Ron Paul is a complete enigma to me. On rare occasions, he seems to be the only one who gets it. And then he’ll say something bazaar like this that prevents anyone with half a brain from supporting him.
You quote 1 opinion from a newspaper editorial. Their opinion is as valid as yours - or mine.
Overall, it was not questioned that people and whole states had a right to withdraw. Whether you agree with their reasons or not, is not the question. (I certainly didn’t agree with the liberal-then and liberal-now NEers then, but se la vie and let them leave.)
Where in the Constitution does it tell us we can’t leave? Or even what the “process” is? Seriously, perhaps I just didn’t see it when skimming.
Again, to question this is to throw the whole Revolution into moral and “legal” questions. What right had they to decide to dissolve their union with Britain? (NOTE: it’s not “dissolving the union” - it’s breaking away from it.)
But more important in terms of today’s reality, I’d rather have my position/belief and know that the tragedy of Obama would have never occurred than to be a Lincoln nationalist and know that I wholeheartedly support the course of history that has led us to Obamunism.
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.