Campfire Chat - General DiscussionsThis is a forum for posting discussion topics, questions, current events, and anything else you'd like to chat about. Please post serious Civil War History threads in appropriate History Forums.
A More Perfect Union - To Insure Domestic Tranquility
If I may posit one other thing, if the writers of the Constitution had not try to do it so down and dirty, and in such a hurry, and had allowed some thoughtful, sanely-requested and softly-inquired input from people like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, and had actually taken the time to consider the things which would arise from such a writing...
They might have placed what I call a MAJORITY CONTROL CLAUSE, or the Restrictions Upon the Aggrandizement and Usurpation of the Majority into their writings, which would have stated, to wit:
Even though a majority of unprecedented statesmen take the control of the Congress, and the Executive, and even have all at their disposal... Their reign shall be on this wise:
They shall not vote themselves such largesse from the common treasury as to provoke their sister states to
wrath, nor shall they align themselves with dangerous and subversive elements so as to terrorize the minority factions.
They shall not be allowed to implement unreasonable change upon the said Minority without first seeing to their social safety, their economic concerns, and their voice at the general government.
If a forced Union should be deemed necessary for the continuance of any sort of business, the Minority must not be provoked into a common depression, nor taunted by their Majority, and the offices of goodwill and brotherhood shall be enforced upon every decision made at the law.
The Minority party shall enjoy a Bill of Rights which shall arrest and detain the unchecked spread of enthusiasm at the hand of the Majority...
Bill of Rights
The Slavery Bill:
No State shall be required to lose any rights without a Constitutional amendment, nor shall any State deny the rights of the other several States with regard to their personal property in transit, nor in actual ownership.
If rights in Constitutional property are denied in any state, and enforced by a sectional movement at the general government, through an unconcerned political coup in the general government, and the loss of value in said property be made, in fact, the common treasury shall REIMBURSE ALL SUCH LOSS to the owners of said property, human, animal, or otherwise, to the utmost f a r thing. To wit:
The owners of such property shall be reimbursed all purchase investment, and also the monies needed to rehabilitate the slaves into employees, and then receive monies when these slaves leave, at the rate they choose to leave. The slaves will also be entitled to a welfare from the general government for relocation and reestablishment. The federal and general government shall then underwrite these property owners with regards to operations for an unspecified period, until such time as they are solvent with willing and paid labor.
.......
In short, if it ever started getting into the pockets of the Abolitionists and their sectional majority mob, they might not be so hot to start such difficulties in the name of the their
ideologies and their rhetorical rabble-rousing. And it would certainly not be so enticing to the Republican Left, when it starts to cost them, which, in fact, IT RIGHTLY SHOULD HAVE DONE...
And from there, we might have a government that would last forever...
A more perfect Union - and thus, INSURING DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY
Instead of one which is not really sure what even happened...
It is not too late to add that clause!
Beowulf
Give the South this, and it is doubtful that one would ever see another Confederate Flag, ever again, nor even need to see one... It would have done its job, for the last time.
It would have been successful, at last.
The Stars and Stripes would now stand for the principles of the South, as well!
You know.... I never did get a response for a question I buried in an earlier post.
Should the North have hammered the south the first time a free black man was visiting a slave state and compelled to be a slave?
By all of the "logic" and all of the yakity yak about states rights this and respect for property that that the philosophical children of Trotsky are spewing out, you'd think they'd be all over that and say (EXPLETIVE) yes! By all means, the respect for personal property and a man's right to own himself is paramount!
But maybe, just maybe, it really was about race after all.
(Trotsky you ask? Why not? He bears as much responsibility for collective farms and antipathy to capitalism as anyone. And what is a cotton plantation but a collective farm, run by peasants for the collective good of the party officials?)
Last edited by Baggage Handler #2; 06-21-2008 at 04:12 PM.
Reason: An "a" for an "i"
You know.... I never did get a response for a question I buried in an earlier post.
Should the North have hammered the south the first time a free black man was visiting a slave state and compelled to be a slave?
By all of the "logic" and all of the yakity yak about states rights this and respect for property that that the philosophical children of Trotsky are spewing out, you'd think they'd be all over that and say (EXPLETIVE) yes! By all means, the respect for personal property and a man's right to own himself is paramount!
But maybe, just maybe, it really was about race after all.
(Trotsky you ask? Why not? He bears as much responsibility for collective farms and antipathy to capitalism as anyone. And what is a cotton plantation but a collective farm, run by peasants for the collective good of the party officials?)
Was that how Slavery worked? Did the Constitution protect Southern slave owners in their press gangs for the Blacks who were not being utilized by anyone else?
Or were these a couple of isolated incidences that you would like to blow all out of proportion so you can FORT SUMTER them for effect?
Your view of the plantation system was certainly how the North was viewing them, and the Southern slave owners as their task masters who worked the Negro for Northern benefit!
Seems that nothing injures domestic tranquility quite so much as an armed insurrection against an honestly and fairly elected national government.
A national government who is taken over by a sectional majority and who are interested in only a portion of the people, and who seek to provoke an armed provocation so they can attack and regain lost soil and then bleat about it for the next thousand year reich!
BECAUSE, we need to LIE to our people and wave bloody shirts THAT DON'T HAVE ANY BLOOD ON THEM... YET.
Because they can't just approach the South like MEN and say, HEY, YOU CAN'T SECEDE because if you do, by God, we'll kill every one of you for it!
Nah, we'll just instead send one or more of our psychotic monsters down there to do it for us!
AFTER we pretend we have been so wronged for remaining in Charleston Harbor with only ill intentions...
If you drive that far enough into the ground, you can bury it!
It seems to me the Congress of the United States was woefully inadequate in their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the Union in 1861. This war shouldn't have happened at all. Slavery and tariffs were a government thing, warts and all. Votes would have been far safer than bullets, at least for a while.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
It seems to me the Congress of the United States was woefully inadequate in their responsibility to uphold the integrity of the Union in 1861. This war shouldn't have happened at all. Slavery and tariffs were a government thing, warts and all. Votes would have been far safer than bullets, at least for a while.
Yes sir. The very thing Davis mentioned to the Senate prior to Miss. leaving the Union...
What was missing, according to Davis, was a senatorial review of the Brown incident, which would have eased Southern minds concerning Abolitionist terrorisms...
Instead, Senator Trumbull of Illinois and the senator from Massachusetts start bleating about the rightness of Brown's cause by making speeches on the institution of slavery, and not about protecting people who currently owned slaves... and not protecting the several states from what Davis candidly called INVASIONS of the states by armed Abolitionists, funded monetarily by the likes of Salmon P. Chase, and William Seward...
Davis nailed these guys in cross-examination, but to no avail. They were sectionally behind the John Brown criminals and against their political rivals, the Conservative South...
The INVASIONS were only just beginning, at the North.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
A More Perfect Union - To Insure Domestic Tranquility 
Linear Mode
