24 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignYour assertions are at odds with the written statements of the individual seceding States which most certainly affirmatively defended the institution of slavery.
The reasons for slavery dying passively were economic. Slavery was only marginally profitable on large sugar and cotton plantations, and a small minority of slave owners. Manumissions were becoming more common, especially in the border states, those without cotton and/or sugar.
The reasons for expanding slavery to the "territories" was political, not ...[text shortened]... or full persons not 2/3rds, and would therefore increase Southern political clout in Congress.
Should I believe you or them?
24 Nov 12
Texas: She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery - the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits - a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauder"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
In Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
===
Sorry, don't see it. Congress can admit new states. Don't see anything about expelling them nor about preventing them leaving.
24 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358😴😴
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Pow admit new states. Don't see anything about expelling them nor about preventing them leaving.
Never claimed a State could be expelled. I already pointed out that the Union was expressly stated to be "perpetual", your ignoring that wording notwithstanding.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderAny legislation can have a descriptive title -- "The Affordable Care Act" for instance. Or how about the "Fresh Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act." I mean who says those mushrooms are really fresh or that care affordable?
So when wording is inconvenient to your argument you simply assert its meaninglessness. Got it.
The issue is not the aspirations signaled by the title, but whether one group of people can make a decision that binds all future generations -- destroy their liberty, essentially.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm free to ignore it since the word "perpetual" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase "perfect union" does appear. Clearly the union could be made more perfect by allowing a dissenting state to leave.
😴😴
Never claimed a State could be expelled. I already pointed out that the Union was expressly stated to be "perpetual", your ignoring that wording notwithstanding.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358This is just sophistry. They said what they meant. Any and all documents bind people. Laws are binding on future generations until repealed. The Constitution can be amended or an entirely new one created by a new Convention. No one's "liberty is destroyed" despite your hysterical hyperbole.
Any legislation can have a descriptive title -- "The Affordable Care Act" for instance. Or how about the "Fresh Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act." I mean who says those mushrooms are really fresh or that care affordable?
The issue is not the aspirations signaled by the title, but whether one group of people can make a decision that binds all future generations -- destroy their liberty, essentially.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by spruce112358🙄🙄
I'm free to ignore it since the word "perpetual" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase "perfect union" does appear. Clearly the union could be made more perfect by allowing a dissenting state to leave.
Even you know that is nonsense. The Constitution vastly expanded the powers of the central government; to argue that by "more perfect" they meant any State could leave any time they felt like it is utter BS.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
24 Nov 12
It amazes me that people try to make the argument that the Civil War was not ultimately about slavery. No1 has already posted two links that show the declaration of secession but here is Georgia's where they mention slavery or anti-slavery at least 8 times in the 1st paragraph alone and refer to "Lincoln's Republican Party" as the anti-slavery party:
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp
"The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party."
Yeah what an evil bastard that Lincoln was! :eyeroll:
24 Nov 12
I guess by spruce's "logic" any city, town or village can "secede" at any time from any State or their "liberty" has been destroyed.
Why stop there? Any person should be able to declare themselves separate from the body politic and resist with force any attempt to make them comply with the relevant governmental entity rules if the argument is carried to its logical conclusion.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by normbenignThere has been endless debate on the profitability of slavery. Cotton from slave labor constituted almost half of the value of US exports in the years immediately preceding the Civil War. A few thousand slave owners were certainly fabulously rich. Most were not.
The reasons for slavery dying passively were economic. Slavery was only marginally profitable on large sugar and cotton plantations, and a small minority of slave owners. Manumissions were becoming more common, especially in the border states, those without cotton and/or sugar.
The reasons for expanding slavery to the "territories" was political, not ...[text shortened]... or full persons not 2/3rds, and would therefore increase Southern political clout in Congress.
Granting that there is much debate on the economics, it is beyond dispute that the governments of the Southern States severely restricted manumission; they did not want a lot of free blacks roaming around. I see no compelling reason to believe that Southern racist attitudes would have changed much in the late 1800s; even after emancipation was forced on them, these States as soon as possible implemented segregation and other oppressive measures against blacks and bitterly resisted the dismantling of these laws into my lifetime. You'll pardon me if I find it hard to believe that Southerners would have ended slavery in the late 1800s given the historical facts including the fervor for the institution shown in the secession ordinances.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, but you are arguing that this one thing can't be repealed. A state legislature cannot repeal its own decision to join with the union. If that was the understanding, it should definitely have been stated in the Constitution. It wasn't, and so we can hardly complain if a state asserts the right to secede.
This is just sophistry. They said what they meant. Any and all documents bind people. Laws are binding on future generations until repealed. The Constitution can be amended or an entirely new one created by a new Convention. No one's "liberty is destroyed" despite your hysterical hyperbole.
24 Nov 12
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, my logic only extends as far as saying I see no obvious prohibition. The topic simply hasn't been addressed. A single word in the title of a superseded document is not enough.
I guess by spruce's "logic" any city, town or village can "secede" at any time from any State or their "liberty" has been destroyed.
Why stop there? Any person should be able to declare themselves separate from the body politic and resist with force any attempt to make them comply with the relevant governmental entity rules if the argument is carried to its logical conclusion.
I'm not pro secession at all. Just sayin'.