The petition to let Texas secede from the U.S. to be reviewed by the White House
As of 3:40 p.m. ET, more than 25,000 Texans have already signed the petition on The White House website to let Texas peacefully secede from United States of America and âcreate its own NEW government.â
The petition, created on Nov. 9, argues for secession.
Lincoln did not free the slaves in areas "under rebellion" merely out of cynical political calculus. Being a lawyer, he knew that the Taney Court (c.f. Dred Scott) would throw out any case of unilateral federal emancipation unless it was very narrowly justified as a military expedient. This is why the Proclamation was very pedantic, which disappointed idealistic abolitionists. Lincoln knew that further action on slavery had to be by Congress. Before the Proclamation, there were cases where Lincoln even countermanded Union commanders' orders (e.g. Fremont) to free slaves, he was that cautious.
He did try to promote compensated emancipation in Delaware, but it was completely rejected. He did not appreciate enough that slavery was a culture, not merely an economic system. Slaveowners would not be bought out.
Now I think the South had a plausible Constitutional case for slavery. But they had no Biblical case whatever.
Democracy or not, I'm against rebellion because it's in essence satanic. However, if government is based on a contract, the exercise of contractual rights is lawful. Unlike the world of antiquity, things are no longer Lex Rex.
Ah, Marty, I liked most of your comments until the very end. As Lincoln and others pointed out, no one has the right to rebel in a democracy. The North proved that point, so that is settled anyway. Also one has to remember, Rendering To Caesar---A Biblical Perspective On Government. Jefferson wa
Thomas Jefferson and Slavery wrote: At the time of the American Revolution, Jefferson was actively involved in legislation that he hoped would result in slaveryâs abolition. In 1778, he drafted a Virginia law that prohibited the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784, he proposed an ordinance that would ban slavery in the Northwest territories. But Jefferson always maintained that the decision to emancipate slaves would have to be part of a democratic process; abolition would be stymied until slaveowners consented to free their human property together in a large-scale act of emancipation. To Jefferson, it was anti-democratic and contrary to the principles of the American Revolution for the federal government to enact abolition or for only a few planters to free their slaves.
Thanks; Marty is the most knowledgeable on this subject I've encountered here. I believe in a limited federal gov't too. But none of this would've impressed any slave in 1860. To them, it was as Samuel Johnson said: "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" Debate over the term âperpetual unionâ would've seemed petty & ridiculous to anyone with their problems.
And the North wasn't all that nice to former slaves, either. Segregation continued until the 1950s, & not just in the South. John Brown was the only American I know of in the Civil War era who treated black people as social equals; other abolitionists, few of whom were orthodox Christians, held to idiotic theories of racial inferiority.
If this was the kind of people we were when the Bible was widely read & known, imagine what we'll become w/o it.
The last article I posted is a helpful tool. Here's another article someone recommended, but I haven't had a chance to read yet (work, family life, etc):
(I do not endorse this article, since I haven't read it, but you can get a jump start if you have time - I plan to read it later).
That aside, I have no roots in the south. I spent most of my life in the Land of Lincoln, and some in Springfield's surrounding area. I have nothing for or against Lincoln. The Temple of Zeus (i.e. Lincoln Memorial) they made for him hasn't changed the fact that he is still a man, capable of being wrong sometimes (e.g. with respect to faith, his family is known for Spiritualism). My church, abolitionist historically, left the south over slavery. I have no horse in this race, no desire to justify kidnapping and racial slavery. I'm only interested in sticking up for one of the means of liberty God has given us... the separation of powers. I don't want history to be changed, since Christ is King over history and the course of nations. I do value a decentralized government and the tools used to make it happen (e.g. secession rights, gun rights, etc). A central government with nothing to fear is a dangerous thing.
Sure, but where are they as sovereign in the Constitution? That was the whole problem with the AofC, & why it had to be revised.
I am aware that perpetuity could be construed that way plausibly. Evidently a lot of Northerners were willing to die for a perpetual Union (not abolition). Call it mistaken if you like, but don't call it dishonest sophistry. It is a subtle issue.
Frankly, after studying Southern slavery, I have no sympathy for the South even if you're correct. If they really had a case for their species of constitutionalism, they should've picked a better cause than chattel slavery to fight over, for nothing else, be they tariffs, the Morrill Act, homesteading, or the Pac RR Act, was as morally plain as slavery. I suspect that even now, few white Americans realize how awful it is to have your entire future stolen from you for no other reason than because you, or your parents, were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even Soviet zeks had more hope: relative freedom in 10 or 25 yrs. The Bible says a lot more about how to treat people than it does about political theory. Before God, I'd rather be wrong about the Constitution than wrong about stealing another's life.
In good faith, I complement you for doing that research, in order to add more to this conversation. It's commendable.
That said, why interpret a legal document to be more draconian, causing it to contradict an early article?
Notice article II: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
See that? Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and indep. After that, upon close examination, there is a break with the word "and." Only the powers, jurisdictions, and rights can be delegated away, but sovereignty, freedom and independ. are not granted away.
So, what of this "perpetual" business? A fair question, one that I can answer with a less contradictory reading of the Articles. Now, in law, are certain legal entities perpetual... yes, corporations have an indefinite life. Now, can shareholders leave a corporation? Yes, they can. Just because someone can leave an entity, doesn't mean it isn't perpetual. The Articles were perpetual in that they didn't need to be renewed.
Here the author takes a different route than me on the Articles(point 9): http://www.endusmilitarism.org/secessionlegality.html
"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary to the political world as storms to the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Marty wrote: (A). The Constitution doesn't delegate session to the Federal government (as it does with accession), nor does it prohibit session (B). Conclusion: session is a state power (C). If it was otherwise, he'd have no reason to even mention his homemade "universal law." Now, why don't you want to talk about 1776. I'd like to see if you are consistent or if you tailor arguments as the mood finds you.
Clever sophistry, but note XIII in, of all places, the Articles of Confederation: "And the Articles ... shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every state."
But you would have me believe that the Constitution, with its stronger central gov't plan, opens the door to unilateral secession despite its writers' claim that it "formed a more perfect Union." It is more perfect by allowing unilateral rupture to a "perpetual" relationship? Absurd! Your deduction contradicts the declared intent of the Founders, in *both* documents.
The 10th reserves all non delegated and non forbidden powers to the States and people (A). The Constitution doesn't delegate session to the Federal government (as it does with accession), nor does it prohibit session (B). Conclusion: session is a state power (C). If it was otherwise, he'd have no reason to even mention his homemade "universal law." Now, why don't you want to talk about 1776. I'd like to see if you are consistent or if you tailor arguments as the mood finds you.
Marty wrote: It did mention growth after all (i.e. accession)...
Yet it doesn't mention succession, presumably at least as troublesome as accession, so am I to believe the writers considered secession a realistic possibility, so ordinary a matter it was hardly worth mentioning? Call this an Argument from Silence if you will, but the assymetry is striking.