Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
IMO, the reason the southern leadership 'tried' to keep it 'legal', was because, gaining independence by revolution, justified by the right of all men, to change unlawful or oppressive government, would be a bad example to set for their slaves.
Nope because as the SC and the FF clearly set out, all men was all free white men, not those free white mens property haveing rights that socity recognised to the free white citizens in society.
P henry manssrvant was holding henrys horse and listining to his give me liberty of give me death speech, liked waht he heard and left to join the british army who made him free and at wars end took him to Canada rather than return him to slavery as henry demanded, henry was talking about the citizens haveing rights to alter or ablish governments, not about property haveing rights as citizens.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Pointing to a legal right is inherently stronger than pointing to an equitable right.
NO!
A legal right just has some type of Authority supporting it and enforcing it.
A equitable right is one of fairness which falls on a society or community to support it and enforce and sometimes and can be turned into a legal right or law.
If one type is stronger then the other it is questionable!
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
henry was talking about the citizens haveing rights to alter or ablish governments, not about property haveing rights as citizens.
Hanny,
The issue is humans are not property in any form at anytime. I AND THE LAWS OF NATURE understand that slavery is a perversion of humanity no matter if it it goes back thousands of years of human culture.
If it is a perversion in the past as it is today for every culture gets to a point were it outlaws slavery in all its forms because its a perversion of the Laws of Nature.
All men have Inaliable rights and slavery imposes upon it. There is no where were humans are property......
Hanny you always imply a human can be property but are you property if so how much are you worth... and can I buy and sale you...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
I am sorry Hanny, but your description applies Only IF slaves were, IN FACT, not human beings, but, actually ,ONLY, property, which, I doubt even you can sustain (or dare I say, Approve).
You state a debatable point as if it were a fact. The fallacy of a Strict Construction of the Constitution, is that it was/is written in stone and thus incapable of change to meet changing times, through history.
In point of fact, Even IF the FF and Patrick Henry, were in agreement with you, it would not alter the fact that the Slaves (being human, despite what Hanny thinks) would most certainly draw certain conclusions from seeing and hearing about inalienable rights of man, the rights to Freedom, the necessity to change oppresive governments and at the same time be participants (or only observers as some seem to have thought) in a great war to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for thier masters might have a resonance among the masters oppressed slaves. and Hanny, like many another southron,s is imbued with the thoughts of Taney and not studied enough history.
They apparently know about the thoughts and aspirations of Patrick Henry and not enough about the aspirations of ordinary human beings.
A revolution to throw off the authority of a pervived oppressive government, would certainly be food for thought for many a slave who saw or even heard of it.
If one type is stronger then the other it is questionable!
That's rather emphatic. Notwithstanding I continue to practice law in one of the few jurisdictions that maintains a distinction between law and equity. While its admittedly watered down, NJ continues to maintain the Chancery Division.
Since South Carolina points to a 'breach of the compact' the best example to illustrate my point would be contracts law.
In any contracts case, you will always plead any statutory/administrative code violations, followed by basic breach of contract/covenants/warranties, etc. all followed by the various equity based 'quasi-contract' theories
If you're the 'South' arguing in favor of secession, your first, best argument, is to appeal to law (ie. we have every legal right to do what we're doing) followed by appealing to equity (ie. even if our secession is not sanctioned by law, the equities justify secession because of x,y,z)
The issue is humans are not property in any form at anytime. I AND THE LAWS OF NATURE understand that slavery is a perversion of humanity no matter if it it goes back thousands of years of human culture.
If it is a perversion in the past as it is today for every culture gets to a point were it outlaws slavery in all its forms because its a perversion of the Laws of Nature.
All men have Inaliable rights and slavery imposes upon it. There is no where were humans are property......
Hanny you always imply a human can be property but are you property if so how much are you worth... and can I buy and sale you...
Sorry but your contradicting the FF, the constion and the Sc and hsitory all at the same time, which gets a tad annoying.
the law of nature does not came into it, society forms laws to govern society, and the US only ends slavery by posistive law, natural alw does not apply to property, and thast what slaves are in law. cicero who was one of the earliest natural law prpoenets did not mean that roman slaves had rights, meerly that the law of natur4e ment, as Aristotle put it, from birth some are marked out for servetitude and others to rule.
natural law is the law that amde men slve to others, no two things have the same chance in life, and the law of nature is that carnivores eat omnivoires and that the strong exploit the weak and the smart expolit the stupid, these are laws of nature and slavery was one of them.
I am not property i am a citizen with rights, slaves in the USA were chattel property, with what rights they had transfered to their owner.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I am sorry Hanny, but your description applies Only IF slaves were, IN FACT, not human beings, but, actually ,ONLY, property, which, I doubt even you can sustain (or dare I say, Approve).
sorry my uniforrmed friend, that slaves were property is in your constion, your state constions, your SCOTUS rullings and all the history books you care to open.
My aproval is not required, meerly to acept historal facts and not deny them.
Quote:
You state a debatable point as if it were a fact. The fallacy of a Strict Construction of the Constitution, is that it was/is written in stone and thus incapable of change to meet changing times, through history.
In point of fact, Even IF the FF and Patrick Henry, were in agreement with you, it would not alter the fact that the Slaves (being human, despite what Hanny thinks)
Since i have not indicated what i think, only what i post, your grasp is less than sure, and since the facts are certain and indisputable, non one was not saying thgey were not human, but that that they were not citizens with rights, but property instead.
Quote:
would most certainly draw certain conclusions from seeing and hearing about inalienable rights of man, the rights to Freedom, the necessity to change oppresive governments and at the same time be participants (or only observers as some seem to have thought) in a great war to secure the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for thier masters might have a resonance among the masters oppressed slaves.
Sorry again my uniformed friend, theDOI and all that good stuff is for citizens in society, not property, not even women either at that time.
Quote:
and Hanny, like many another southron,s is imbued with the thoughts of Taney and not studied enough history.
They apparently know about the thoughts and aspirations of Patrick Henry and not enough about the aspirations of ordinary human beings.
Again i have not posted what people thought but what they said and did, if you wish to counter any of that be my guess, as i risk my knowedge of history against yours in a heartbeat.
Quote:
A revolution to throw off the authority of a pervived oppressive government, would certainly be food for thought for many a slave who saw or even heard of it.
Which was why the south was rocked with massive slave risings in the WBTS right?.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
That's rather emphatic. Notwithstanding I continue to practice law in one of the few jurisdictions that maintains a distinction between law and equity. While its admittedly watered down, NJ continues to maintain the Chancery Division.
Since South Carolina points to a 'breach of the compact' the best example to illustrate my point would be contracts law.
In any contracts case, you will always plead any statutory/administrative code violations, followed by basic breach of contract/covenants/warranties, etc. all followed by the various equity based 'quasi-contract' theories
If you're the 'South' arguing in favor of secession, your first, best argument, is to appeal to law (ie. we have every legal right to do what we're doing) followed by appealing to equity (ie. even if our secession is not sanctioned by law, the equities justify secession because of x,y,z)
Thats one way to go, and many thought that a breach of compact was required to allow secesion, others meerly at will because they were sovriegns with the right at will without cause.
The other is that a sovriegn requires no SC aproval to excerisie a right not delagated but retained to the people of the state. It is the peoploe who are the masters and holders of the authority, not the SC or others.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
How oily and slippery Hanny can be.
According to the DoI, the FF believed that the rights to be protected by 'law' were natural rights (among which were Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness)
Now I know Hanny, assumes they meant that the slave had only the option of securing those rights only as they applied to being a slave. But I do not think that was what the FF were saying.
Somehow it is difficult to assume they meant a slave was to remain a slave until such time as the master would free them, at his leisure. They certainly didn't give George III, that option for a lot less wrongs.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Legal v. Equitable 
Linear Mode
